Politics

RFK Jr. faces trouble in the Senate

Published

2 years ago

December 10, 2024

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the latest Donald Trump Cabinet pick facing trouble in the Senate.

At least three closely watched senators are noncommittal about confirming the vaccine critic, who’s being considered to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Those include swing votes like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as well as Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who will chair a committee that could host confirmation hearings for Kennedy.

Kennedy can afford to lose only three Republicans during his confirmation if all Senate Democrats vote against him.

This group of senators closely resembles those who weren’t sold on former Rep. Matt Gaetz for attorney general or have questioned defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth. While Hegseth’s embattled nomination has sucked up most of the media oxygen recently, that doesn’t mean Kennedy or others will sail through the chamber smoothly.

Other nominees seem to have benefited from Gaetz’s and Hegseth’s troubles as well, flying under the radar despite potential problems. Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s future as director of national intelligence could face turbulence over her past comments on Russia, among other issues. And Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has faced little to no criticism from senators so far, despite his stated intentions to clean house at the bureau.

“This is a week going after Tulsi Gabbard. Now, I guess they’re gonna skip over Kash [Patel] and then go after RFK next week, because he’s coming,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who said he’s meeting with Kennedy next Tuesday. Tuberville broadly supports Trump’s nominees and said Kennedy has “got a lot of great ideas” and is “outside the box.”

But Kennedy’s political baggage is another problem Republicans can’t ignore, as they try to remain largely deferential to the president-elect. Though many have boasted about party unity, some are increasingly anxious about giving a rubber stamp to nominees far outside the mainstream. But tanking more of Trump’s picks could end up sparking his ire, with Republicans bracing for him to boost primary challengers against those who won’t go along.

Unlike Gaetz and Hegseth, Kennedy has a lot of policy-centric issues, rather than mainly personal scandals. The former Democratic-turned-independent presidential candidate has a long history of vaccine skepticism and has espoused the debunked theory that vaccines have caused an increase in autism. He’s called sexual assault allegations against him “garbage” while also noting “I’m not a church boy.” And some of his proposals, like removing fluoride from American drinking water or reevaluating childhood vaccine recommendations, have drawn instant criticism from health experts.

“I realize Covid got to be pretty controversial, but vaccinations are an important part of our public health, starting with the requirement that kids get vaccinations before they go to school,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, noting he has questions about Kennedy’s stance on the issue.

When asked if Kennedy’s past controversies will bog down his nomination, Cassidy said everyone wants to “predict the future” but he just wants to “let things play.”

Meanwhile, Hegseth’s issues have brought another facet of the battle into sharp focus, as he insists that he will keep fighting and not withdraw. Conservative voices have mounted intense pressure campaigns against senators who aren’t openly supporting Trump picks — Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) was particularly targeted online and on TV when she withheld her support for Hegseth. She’s sounded a more positive note on the pick to lead the Pentagon this week.

Kennedy’s meetings with senators still could change his prospects — it’ll be the opportunity for questioning that many senators have been seeking. But meetings so far have proved minimally fruitful for Trump’s most controversial nominees, like Gaetz and Hegseth.

There has been speculation that Kennedy, who ran for president as a Democrat just last year before switching to an independent and later dropping out and endorsing Trump, could find salvation among Democratic senators. Many have known him or his family long before he ran for the presidency.

But a quick survey of Democrats didn’t turn up much in the way of positive comments. A handful gave deferential answers to the nomination process, saying they looked forward to meeting with him in committee and asking him questions. Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said he wants Kennedy to “have his chance to make his pitch.” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) similarly said he wants to talk to Kennedy directly and has “a lot of questions for him.”

Others weren’t so timid. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee member, said he doesn’t want a “denier of science” helming the nation’s top health agency.

“I get that there are quid-pro-quos in politics, but that one’s a pretty naked one,” Murphy said. “I know politics is crass, but that’s pretty fucking crass.”

And a GOP senator, granted anonymity to speak candidly, last week suggested Kennedy might be the next of Trump’s nominees to face problems in the Senate. They noted that goodwill from Democrats toward the nominee may even “hurt” his chances with Republicans.

Kennedy’s former party affiliation did prove a testy point with some members of the Senate GOP. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said “that’s a factor, because then you’ve got to go back and figure out what’s changed.”

“I often say about him and Tulsi [Gabbard], a few weeks ago, they were both Democrats,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. “And so we ought to tread somewhat carefully. We’re all for recruitment, and we love people to come over. But you oftentimes don’t put a baby convert in the pulpit.”

Ben Leonard contributed to this report.

Politics

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

Published

45 minutes 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

3 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.