Politics

A vote for Trump is a vote for a potential Vance presidency

Published

2 years ago

November 11, 2024

A vote for Trump is a vote for a potential Vance presidency

This is an adapted excerpt from the Oct. 5 episode of “The Katie Phang Show.”

In some ways, vice presidents are like understudies; you may never need them to step into the breach but they’re there just in case something goes wrong.

And as we inch closer to November’s election, I want you to consider this: If elected, Donald Trump — who is currently 78 years old, regularly frequents McDonald’sand loves his Diet Cokes — would end his second term as the oldest personeverto serve as president of the United States. On the final day of his presidency in January 2029, Trump would be 82 years, seven months and six days old.

Trump’s meandering speeches have led some mental health experts to go on the record, raising concerns about his potential cognitive decline.

The former president’s rambling, meandering speeches on the campaign trail have led some mental health experts to go on the record, raising concerns about his potential cognitive decline. Despite these concerns, Trump refuses to release even the most basic information about his health.

So what happens if Trump wins in November and then, days, weeks, months or years into his presidency, dies or becomes incapacitated and can no longer serve? Well, according to Section 1 of the 25th Amendment, in that event, the vice president would become the president automatically.

To state it plainly: Sen. JD Vance is a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States. The same Vance who, right now, has poll numbers labeling him the least popular vice-presidential candidate of the 21s t century — unsurprising given his many extremist views on everything from child care to the truth of who won the 2020 election. I mean, not admitting your running mate lost the last election is a huge red flag that you have an issue with the truth.

During last week’s vice-presidential debate, Vance got caught in another lie. The senator claimed he never supported a national abortion ban. However, in 2022 while he was running for the Senate, Vance said on a podcast he “certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.”

Then there’s his extremist stances. Also during that 2022 run for the Senate, Vance delivered a 30-minute speech titled “The Universities are the Enemy” at the National Conservatism Conference.

It seems Yale-educated Vance wants to overhaul the education system in his image.

“I think if any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country,” the then-candidate told the crowd. “Ladies and gentlemen, the universities do not pursue knowledge and truth, they pursue deceit and lies, and it’s time to be honest about that fact.”

Now, in my opinion, the best way to pursue a good and fulfilling life is through education, but it seems Yale-educated Vance wants to overhaul the education system in his image. Under Project 2025, a Trump-Vance administration could eliminate the Department of Education, privatize K-12and dismantle the current collegiate system.

He’s a threat to everything Americans hold dear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if something were to happen to Trump, the big job would go to Vance: the guy who refuses to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election, promotes anti-immigrant hate rhetoricand supports a national abortion ban.

And let’s be clear, 40-year-old Vance is fully aware that Trump is 78 years old. You’re kidding yourself if you think he didn’t consider Trump’s physical and mental health issues when contemplating his career advancement and upward mobility prospects as the Republican VP nominee.

So, before you cast your ballot in this year’s election, you should remember this: Any vote for Donald Trump is a vote for a potential automatic JD Vance presidency. Vote accordingly.

Katie S. Phang

Katie S. Phang is the host of “The Katie Phang Show,” which airs Saturdays at 12 p.m. ET on BLN. She is a legal contributor for NBC News and BLN based in Miami. She leverages her significant trial attorney experience to provide analysis and commentary on the latest legal issues.

Allison Detzel

contributed

Politics

A forced-labor crackdown or an end-run around Congress? Dissecting Trump’s new tariffs

Published

3 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration has imposed double-digit tariffs on more than 60 countriesusing a legal justification that permits the president to levy import taxes and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices.

The new tariffs announced in recent days take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expiredand critics say they are less about cracking down on forced labor than they are a way to replace those tariffs. The expired tariffs were themselves a temporary replacement for worldwide tariffs the Supreme Court struck down in February.

The tariffs were levied on countries that the U.S. says either don’t have or don’t effectively enforce a forced-labor import ban. The affected countrieswhich account for 99% of U.S. imports, were quick to protest, calling the Trump administration’s claims unfounded and arbitrary, as nations with vastly different records on forced labor received the same tariff level. The U.S. spent four months investigating but gave few details on how it arrived at the tariff rates, which are either 10% or 12.5%.

Sidestepping Congress

The tariffs were levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on countries that the U.S. determined had failed “to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

During President Donald Trump ‘s first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports amid a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.

“The 301s allow a permanent tariff without going to Congress to settle the dispute,” said Barry Appleton, a law professor and co-director of New York Law School’s Center for International Law. “That’s what all of this is about. The president doesn’t want to knock on the front door of Congress, so he’s trying every side door and every unlatched window to get in.”

Little evidence that countries failed to enforce import bans

The office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) said it consulted with all 60 economies under investigation and held two rounds of public hearings, elicited more than 2,100 public comments, and had “engagement” with its trading partners about what they were doing to combat forced labor bans.

It didn’t detail its talks with the countries, saying those were confidential. Experts say it is fairly straightforward to investigate whether a country has a ban or not, but it is difficult to determine the government’s exact rationale for each country’s failure to enforce import bans.

“There’s not a lot of hard evidence there,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics and trade policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “It’s pretty laughable on its face to think that a country like the ones in Europe or in Norway or Switzerland aren’t doing enough to police forced labor.”

And even if countries do enact and enforce the forced-labor import bans the U.S. wants, they would still need to prove that they’re enforcing them to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs would be removed, said lawyer Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official.

“This suggests that no short-term path for countrywide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available,” he said.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Countries and industries reject the forced labor argument

Many countries have pushed back against the Trump administration’s findings.

Brazil, which faces a 12.5% forced-labor tariff, called the U.S. move “arbitrary and unjustified.” The U.S. “chose to manipulate an issue of great importance to human rights and the struggles of workers worldwide in order to accuse 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices,” it said in a statement.

Australia also questioned the justification for its 12.5% tariff.

“We believe that amongst all of the countries in the world, Australia does take the issue of slavery, modern slavery, seriously, and will continue to do that,” Trade Minister Don Farrell told reporters in Adelaide.

Carve-outs have riled some industries. The National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), which describes itself as the voice of the American textile industry, protested a mechanism that exempts the Section 301 tariffs for textile and apparel imports from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Malaysia based on those countries’ imports of U.S. cotton and textiles.

“No other industry has been more disadvantaged by forced labor than the U.S. textile industry, which employs 453,000 workers and has lost 41 plants over the past two plus years,” NCTO chief executive Kim Glas said in a statement. “We remain strongly concerned that USTR’s textile mechanism will harm the very domestic manufacturers the administration seeks to help.”

US forced-labor bans don’t always work

The U.S. has two major pieces of legislation related to forced-labor import bans. The Tariff Act of 1930 gave Customs and Border Protection the authority to seize shipments where forced labor was suspected and to block further imports. But it had a big carve-out: If there was “consumptive demand,” meaning there wasn’t sufficient supply to meet domestic demand, imports were allowed regardless of how they were produced. The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act that took effect in 2016 eliminated that loophole.

In 2021, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act was passed. It blocks imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove the items were made without forced labor.

But goods made with forced labor can still make it into the U.S. In 2015, an Associated Press investigation found that slave labor was used in the fishing industry in Southeast Asia. The seafood they caught made its way to supermarkets and pet food providers across the U.S.

An investigation by The Associated Press in 2020 into the $65 billion palm oil industry found labor abuses among an invisible workforce consisting of millions of men, women and children in Asia. The fruit they harvested made its way into the supply chains of major companies, including Unilever, L’Oreal, Nestle and Procter & Gamble.

Calls for a more comprehensive approach to combat forced labor

During hearings on the tariffs this month, National Retail Federation vice president Jonathan Gold, who was representing the business coalition the Joint Association Forced Labor Working Group at the hearing, said that in order for the import bans to work, they would have to be much more extensive.

He said there need to be “clear, measurable benchmarks” tied to tariffs for countries to hit, and that the U.S. should help countries build enforcement programs.

Kenya Davis, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm, said an effective ban needs a “comprehensive approach” that provides transparency about what the investigations consisted of, along with programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans.

Politics

El-Sayed comes under fire for ‘ogre on a pike’ leaked comment

Published

4 hours ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is facing backlash from within his own party after using controversial rhetoric to describe the stakes of his victory in a recent donor meeting.

“You put one ogre on a pike, and then everyone else gets the message, and all of a sudden starts to sound a lot different,” El-Sayed said, describing how his win could propel the progressive movement, according to audio of a Zoom meeting obtained by POLITICO.

On Monday, several Democrats were quick to slam his comments, which they took as direct reference to his Senate primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens. El-Sayed had not explicitly mentioned Stevens in the portion of the call Blue Light News reviewed.

“Calling your female opponent an ogre you want to put on a pike is not beating the rap that this race has some serious sexism,” Neera Tanden, a centrist Democrat and president of the Center for American Progress, posted on X. Melissa Byrne, a former staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders, called the remark an “unforced error” that is “really bad and beneath the progressive project.”

El-Sayed’s leaked comments and the reaction to them amount to another flashpoint in a tense primary that is dividing the progressive and moderate wings of the party, and at times has been defined by accusations of racism and sexism.

“Abdul continues with personal insults and making this race about his personal political ambitions and the other 49 states,” said Arik Wolk, spokesperson for the Stevens campaign. “Haley is focused on getting things done for Michigan, and only Michigan.”

Republicans also immediately jumped on the comment, and some leaned into stereotypes of El-Sayed’s religion as a Muslim. “Michigan Islamist discusses beheading his opponents,” said Steve Guest, a former staffer for Sen. Ted Cruz, on X.

An El-Sayed campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the backlash. A spokesperson had previously told Blue Light News that the candidate was “speaking metaphorically” about his intention to support a primary against Sen. John Fetterman in Pennsylvania.

This is not the first time El-Sayed has used — and defended — aggressive political rhetoric. “When they go low, we don’t go high,” the progressive said while speaking at a campaign rally earlier this year, riffing on a famous line from former first lady Michelle Obama. “We take them to the mud and choke them out.”

He and Stevens will face off in their final Democratic Senate debate Monday night, and the results of the Aug. 4 primary could have major consequences for the party as it grapples with its ideological tack ahead of the 2028 presidential election.