Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s State of the Union will seek to calm voters’ economic concerns

Published

on

Trump’s State of the Union will seek to calm voters’ economic concerns

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump declared during a marathon State of the Union on Tuesday that “we’re winning so much” — insisting he’d sparked an economic boom at home and imposed a new world order abroad in hopes it can counter his sliding approval ratings.

Trump’s main objective was convincing increasingly wary Americans that the economy is stronger than many believe, and that they should vote for more of the same by backing Republicans during November’s midterm elections. In all, Trump spoke for a record 108 minutes, breaking — by eight minutes — the previous time mark from his address before a joint session of Congress last year.

The president largely avoided his usual bombast, only occasionally veering off-script — mostly to slam Democrats. As he did during such addresses in his first term, Trump relied on a series of surprise special guests to dramatically punctuate his message. They included U.S. military heroes and a former political prisoner released after U.S. forces toppled Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump drew some of the loudest applause of the night when he invited the Olympic gold medal-winning U.S. men’s hockey team into the House chamber.

“Our country is winning again. In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it. People are asking me, ‘Please, please, please, Mister President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore,’” Trump said before introducing the team.

AP AUDIO: Trump uses longest-ever State of the Union to try to convince voters that US is ‘winning so much’

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on President Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address.

The hockey players, wearing their medals and “USA” sweaters, drew a bipartisan standing ovation. Trump pointed to the Democratic side of the chamber and quipped, “That’s the first time I ever I’ve ever seen them get up.”

In a made-for-TV moment, the president announced he would be awarding the Presidential Medal of FreedomAmerica’s highest civilian honor, to the hockey team’s goaltender, Connor Hellebuyck. He also bestowed the Purple Heart on Andrew Wolfe — a National Guard member who was shot while deployed on the streets of the nation’s capital. Wolfe made his first public appearance since then during the speech.

That scene recalled a similar surprise announcement in 2020, when Trump gave the Medal of Freedom to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh during his State of the Union speech.

Trump decries tariff decision as justices look on

The president championed his immigration crackdowns and his push to preserve widespread tariffs that the Supreme Court just struck down. He drew applause only from Democrats while describing the high court’s decision, which he called “an unfortunate ruling.”

Trump vowed to plow ahead, using “alternative” laws to impose the taxes on imports and telling lawmakers, “Congressional action will not be necessary.” Trump argued that the tariffs are paid by foreign countries, despite evidence that the costs are borne by American consumers and businesses. “It’s saving our country,” he said.

The only Supreme Court justices attending were Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Trump greeted them personally before the speech, despite last week slamming Coney Barrett — who he appointed to the high court in his first term — for siding with the majority against his tariffs.

Democrats also stood for Trump vowing to halt insider trading by members of Congress. But Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat, yelled, “How about you first!” Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, called out, “You’re the most corrupt president!”

When some heckling continued, Trump proclaimed, “You should be ashamed of yourselves.” Later, he pointed at Democrats and proclaimed, “These people are crazy.”

Democratic Rep. Al Green was escorted from the chamber early in the speech, after he unfurled a sign of protest that read “Black People Aren’t Apes!” That was an apparent reference to a racist video the president posted that depicted former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as primates in a jungle. Green was also removed during Trump’s address last year.

The president, meanwhile, was mostly optimistic and patriotic, but Trump struck a darker tone in large swaths of his speech to warn about the dangers posed by immigrants. He invited lawmakers from both parties to “protect American citizens, not illegal aliens” and championed proposals to limit mail-in ballots and tighten voter identification rules.

Affordability gets relatively little time

Trump didn’t dwell on efforts to lower the cost of living — despite polling showing that his handling of the economy and kitchen-table issues has increasingly become a liability. Such concerns about the high costs of living helped propel Democratic wins around the country on Election Day last November.

There also are persistent fears that tariffs stoking higher prices could eventually hurt the economy and job creation. Economic growth slowed in the last three months of last year.

It is potentially politically perilous ahead of November elections that could deliver congressional wins to Democrats, just as 2018’s blue wave created a strong check to his administration during his first term.

On Tuesday, Trump blamed his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, along with Democratic lawmakers in the chamber, saying they were responsible for rising prices and health care costs, two issues his political opponents have repeatedly raised against him.

“You caused that problem,” Trump said of affordability concerns. He added a moment later, “They knew their statements were a dirty, rotten lie.”

Trump also said he’d press tech companies involved in artificial intelligence to pay higher electricity rates in areas where their data centers are located. Such data centers tend to use large volumes of electricity, potentially increasing the cost of power to other consumers in the area.

Another notable off-script moment came as Trump was referencing prescription drug prices, saying, “So in my first year of the second term — should be my third term — but strange things happen,” prompting at least one chant in the chamber of “Four more years!”

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who delivered the Democratic response to Trump’s speech, slammed the president’s aggressive immigration policies, his widespread cuts to the federal government and his tariffs.

“Even though the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down four days ago, the damage to us, the American people, has already been done. Meanwhile, the president is planning for new tariffs,” she said. “Another massive tax hike on you and your family.”

A warning to Iran

Trump’s address came as two U.S. aircraft carriers have been dispatched to the Middle East amid tensions with Iran. Trump said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy.”

“But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror — which they are, by far — to have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

The president also recounted U.S. airstrikes last summer that pounded Tehran’s nuclear capabilitiesand lauded the raid that ousted Maduro in Venezuela — as well as his administration’s brokering of a ceasefire in Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza.

“As president, I will make peace wherever I can,” Trump said. “But I will never hesitate to confront threats to America, wherever we must.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

The Dictatorship

Judge orders restoration of Voice of America

Published

on

Judge orders restoration of Voice of America

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to restore the government-run Voice of America’s operations after it had effectively been shut down a year ago, putting hundreds of employees who have been on administrative leave back to work.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth gave the U.S. Agency for Global Media a week to put together a plan for putting Voice of America on the air. It has been operating with a skeleton staff since President Donald Trump issued an executive order to shut it down.

A week ago, Lamberth said Kari Lake, who had been Trump’s choice to lead the agency, did not have the legal authority to do what she had done at Voice of America. In Tuesday’s decision, Lamberth ruled on the actions she had taken to respond to Trump’s order, essentially shelving 1,042 of VOA’s 1,147 employees.

“Defendants have provided nothing approaching a principled basis for their decision,” Lamberth wrote.

There was no immediate comment on the decision by the agency overseeing Voice of America. Lake had denounced Lamberth’s March 7 ruling, saying it would be appealed. Since then, Trump nominated Sarah Rogers, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, to run USAGM. That requires Senate approval, a step that was not taken with Lake.

Patsy Widakuswara, Voice of America’s White House bureau chief and a plaintiff in the lawsuit to restore it, said she is deeply grateful for the decision.

“We are eager to begin repairing the damage Kari Lake has inflicted on our agency and our colleagues, to return to our congressional mandate, and to rebuild the trust of the global audience we have been unable to serve for the past year,” she said.

“We know the road to restoring VOA’s operations and reputation will be long and difficult,” she said. “We hope the American people will continue to support our mission to produce journalism, not propaganda.”

Voice of America has transmitted news coverage to countries around the world since its formation in World War II, often in countries with no tradition of a free press. Before Trump’s executive order, VOA had operated in 49 different languages, broadcasting to 362 million people.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump delays China trip to focus on war in Iran

Published

on

Trump delays China trip to focus on war in Iran

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is delaying a diplomatic trip to China that had been planned for months but began to unravel as he pressured Beijing and other world powers to use their military might to protect the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said Tuesday while meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin in the Oval Office that he would be going to China in five or six weeks’ time instead of at the end of the month. He said he would be “resetting” his visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

“We’re working with China — they were fine with it,” Trump said. “I look forward to seeing President Xi. He looks forward to seeing me, I think.”

Trump’s visit to China is seen as an opportunity to build on a fragile trade truce between the two superpowers, but it has become tangled in his effort to find an endgame to the war in Iran. Soon after pressing China and other nations to send warships to secure access to Middle Eastern oil over the weekend, Trump indicated his travel plans depended on Beijing’s response, though he added Tuesday that the U.S. didn’t need help from the allies who rebuffed his request.

AP AUDIO: Trump postpones his China trip to focus on the war in Iran

Speaking with reporters, President Trump says he’s postponing this month’s planned trip to China.

In a Sunday interview with the Financial Times, Trump said he wanted to know whether Beijing would help secure the strait before he departed for the late-March summit. On Monday, he told reporters that he had requested a delay of about a month because of the demands of the war.

“I think it’s important that I be here,” Trump said. “And so it could be that we delay a little bit. Not much.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who met with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in Paris this week for a new round of talks meant to pave the way for Trump’s trip, said any changes to the schedule would be because of logistics, not because Trump was trying to pressure Beijing.

Trump is urging other nations that rely on Middle Eastern oil to help police the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which about one-fifth of the world’s traded oil usually flows. He has singled out China, noting that it gets much of its oil from the strait while the U.S. gets a minimal amount. He also made appeals to Japan, South Korea, Britain and France. There have been no takers so far, and China has been noncommittal.

“We strongly encourage other nations whose economies depend on the strait far more than ours,” Trump said at the White House on Monday. “We want them to come and help us with the strait.”

Trump is framing the war as a favor to the world being carried out by the U.S. and Israel, saying it’s now time for others to do their share to protect the strait. Some world leaders have directly rebuffed the notion and objected to the U.S.’ military approach.

Trump’s trip to China carries major geopolitical consequences as the two nations seek stability in the wake of a trade war that led to soaring tariffs before both sides eased off. Trump and Xi agreed to a one-year trade truce last fall, and Trump later agreed to a state visit to Beijing. He also went to China in 2017, during his first term.

China’s foreign minister said last week that the country looks forward to a “landmark year” in its relationship with the U.S. He added that China’s attitude “has always been positive and open, and the key is for the U.S. side to meet us halfway.”

Trump’s priorities have shifted as the war sends oil prices skyrocketing during a tough midterm year in which affordability was already a chief concern for American voters. In addition to postponing his China trip, he has given Russia a boost by lifting sanctions on its oiland he tapped into the nation’s oil reservessomething he previously objected to doing.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Why Judge Boasberg’s ruling on DOJ’s Jerome Powell investigation is bigger than one case

Published

on

The most important part of Chief Judge James Boasberg’s ruling quashing Justice Department subpoenas served on the Federal Reserve was not simply that he blocked them.

It was that he refused to suspend common sense. He read the subpoenas against the public record that produced them. He took President Donald Trump at his word. That is what made the opinion so important.

Judge Boasberg did not begin with dry procedural throat-clearing. He began with Trump’s own attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the broader campaign of presidential and White House pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates.

For too long, courts have often maintained an artificial separation between presidential rhetoric and executive action.

He quoted Trump calling Powell “TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair.” He cited another post calling Powell “one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government.” He noted Trump’s statement that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” and his threat that if the Fed did not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”

That was not decoration; it was the architecture of the opinion. From page one, Judge Boasberg made clear that motive was not some side issue here. Motive was the case. The subpoenas arose from a Justice Department investigation into supposed cost overruns in the Federal Reserve’s multiyear headquarters renovation project and into Powell’s congressional testimony touching on those renovations. On paper, that was the inquiry. In reality, Judge Boasberg concluded, something else was going on.

Judge Boasberg wrote that there was “abundant evidence” that the dominant, if not sole, purpose of the subpoenas was to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president or resign and make way for someone who would. On the other side of the scale, he said the government had offered “no evidence whatsoever” that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the president. By the end of the opinion, that judgment hardened even further: The government had produced “essentially zero evidence” of criminality, and its stated justifications looked like “a convenient pretext” for another unstated purpose.

That is an extraordinary thing for a federal judge to say about the Department of Justice.

This was not a close call. It was not a case in which prosecutors pushed the envelope and got reined back in. It was a finding that criminal process had been used as pressure rather than law enforcement.

And the way Judge Boasberg got there was the real story. He did not invent improper purpose. Rather, he looked at what was already in plain view. Trump spent months attacking Powell, demanding lower rates and making his desired outcome unmistakable. He said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!” He said, “I want to get him out.” He said he would “love to fire his ass.” He said Powell “should resign.”

A political appointee then floated the Fed renovation issue as a path toward investigation and possible removal. After that, the U.S. Attorney’s Office opened a criminal investigation on that very theory and served subpoenas on the Federal Reserve.

Judge Boasberg looked at that sequence and refused to act naive.

He was right to.

For too long, courts have often maintained an artificial separation between presidential rhetoric and executive action. The president says what he says. Prosecutors do what they do. Judges examine the narrower legal record and resist attributing too much significance to the political atmosphere outside the courthouse. But there comes a point where that posture stops looking disciplined and starts looking unserious.

From page one, Judge Boasberg made clear that motive was not some side issue here. Motive was the case.

When a president has repeatedly identified the official he wants pressured or removed, made his desired outcome unmistakable and then his Justice Department shows up with a paper-thin theory aimed at that same target, a court does not have to pretend those events are unrelated. Judge Boasberg’s opinion suggested that at least some courts may be losing patience with that formalism.

What made the opinion important was not just that Judge Boasberg drew that inference here. It was that he did so openly, in a way that may signal a broader judicial willingness to read executive motive more realistically in politically saturated cases.

That is not judicial activism. It is common sense.

And Trump’s response since the ruling only reinforced the point. In a post after the decision, Trump attacked Judge Boasberg personally, called him a “Wacky, Nasty, Crooked, and totally Out of Control Judge,” said he has been “‘after’ my people, and me, for years,” claimed the ruling had “little to do with the Law, and everything to do with Politics,” and said Judge Boasberg should be removed from cases involving Trump and his administration.

That mattered because it underscored the precise interpretive move Judge Boasberg made in the opinion. The judge treated Trump’s public words not as background noise, but as evidence reasonably bearing on motive and pretext. Trump’s reaction did not undercut that reasoning. It strengthened it.

It also said something larger and more troubling about the DOJ.

The government was given the chance to substantiate its claims and chose not to. Judge Boasberg was left, as he put it, with “no credible reason” to think prosecutors were investigating suspicious facts as opposed to targeting a disfavored official.

That is not just a loss.  It is a collapse of confidence.

And it matters all the more because of what a subpoena is. A subpoena is the point where political pressure becomes legal compulsion. It is the government bringing the authority of criminal process into the room.

That is why misuse of subpoena power is so dangerous. It can impose burden, stigma, cost and fear long before any indictment, and it can intimidate even when no charges are ever filed. Judge Boasberg understood that. He did not treat these subpoenas as some technical skirmish over records. He treated them as part of an effort to pressure the chair of an independent central bank and, in his words, to “bulldoz[e] the Fed’s statutory independence.”

That is why this ruling matters beyond Powell and beyond the Federal Reserve.

Judge Boasberg did not just quash subpoenas.

He modeled a more realistic way for courts to evaluate politically freighted exercises of state power.

And if more judges start doing the same, this opinion will be remembered as more than a rebuke in one ugly case. It will be remembered as an early sign that courts were no longer willing to separate presidential coercion from the legal machinery deployed to carry it out.

Duncan Levin is a criminal defense attorney and former federal prosecutor who serves as a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and is a frequent contributor to MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending