Zion Tech Group

Tag: Actions

  • Live updates: Trump tariffs, executive actions and immigration news


    Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau addresses media following the imposition of a raft of tariffs by President Donald Trump against Canada, Mexico and China, in Ottawa, on Saturday.

    President Donald Trump told reporters that he plans to speak with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday morning, less than a day before the US’ tariffs on the country are scheduled to go into effect.

    Trudeau said Saturday he’d been trying to reach Trump since the inauguration, but his calls have not been returned.

    Trump announced over the weekend that tariffs will amount to a significant 25% duty on all imports from Mexico and most goods from Canada, and a 10% tariff on Chinese goods imported into the United States. The three countries soon announced they would take retaliatory measures.

    On Sunday evening, Trump also threatened to enact additional tariffs on the European Union — accusing the EU of being “really out of line.”

    “They don’t take our cars, they don’t take our farm products. They take almost nothing, and we take everything from them, millions of cars, tremendous amounts of food and farm products,” Trump said.

    Fact check: It’s not true that the EU doesn’t buy US farm products. The US government says the EU bought $12.3 billion worth of US agricultural exports in the 2023 fiscal year, making it the fourth-largest export market for US agricultural and related products.

    And according to a December 2023 report from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association, the EU is the second-largest market for US vehicle exports — importing 271,476 US vehicles in 2022, valued at nearly 9 billion euro.



    As the Trump administration continues to make headlines with its latest policies and actions, stay informed with live updates on tariffs, executive actions, and immigration news. Join us as we track the latest developments and provide analysis on how these decisions could impact the economy, trade relations, and immigration policies. Stay tuned for up-to-the-minute coverage on all things Trump-related. #Trump #tariffs #executiveactions #immigrationnews #updates

    Tags:

    1. Trump tariffs
    2. Executive actions
    3. Immigration news
    4. Trump administration
    5. US economy
    6. Trade policies
    7. Immigration reform
    8. Trump presidency
    9. Tariff updates
    10. Federal policies.

    #Live #updates #Trump #tariffs #executive #actions #immigration #news

  • Opinion | The Shame of What We’ve Done: Assessing Jews’ Responsibility for Israel’s Actions


    The dominant self-conception of the Jewish story is innocence, repeated persecutions, and then redemption by creation of the Jewish nationalist State of Israel.

    This narrative is critically examined in Peter Beinart’s new book,
    Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning.

    Beinart’s book says the maudlin story we Jews tell ourselves of our virtue and heroic endurance inoculates Jews from seeing Israel’s agency in creating the resistance it faces: “We must now tell a new story to answer the horror that a Jewish country has perpetrated… We are not history’s permanent virtuous victims.”

    The predicted consequence of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine to Jews in “diaspora” is happening. Jews feel they are being scrutinized and called to account for Israel’s actions, on campuses and in the streets worldwide.

    Beinart, former editor of
    The New Republic, is now an editor-at-large of Jewish Currents, and a New York Times contributor.

    He has been in a 20-year progression of seeing, more and more sharply, the “Jewish and democratic” state of Israel as anti-democratic and incompatible with Jewish tradition.

    He writes that support for a Jewish state has become “idolatry,” permitting endless killing, torture, and oppression of Palestinians “There is no limit. No matter how many Palestinians die, they do not tip the scales, because the value of a Palestinian is finite and the value of a Jewish state is infinite.”

    Contemporary Jewish life is filled with that idolatry, he observes: “In most of the Jewish world today, rejecting Jewish statehood is a greater heresy than rejecting Judaism itself.”

    The book attributes the horrors imposed on 2 million human beings in Gaza not only to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) but to Jews: “Worshipping a country that elevates Jews over Palestinians replaces Judaism’s universal God—who makes special demands on Jews but cherishes all people–with a tribal deity that considers Jewish life precious and Palestinian life cheap.”

    Beinart is not playing the peekaboo game of saying Jews are not responsible for Israel, and the other half of the time saying Israel is the Jewish State.

    He’s not saying “all Jews,” but fairly saying “representative,” “mainstream” Jewish organizations worldwide are now Zionist. Anti-Zionist organizations are dissident.

    He observes that many synagogues have an Israeli flag on the
    bima (platform where the Torah is read) “and a prayer for Israel in the liturgy.”

    It was predicted and warned about, as the Zionist movement grew, that the effect of creating a Jewish nation-state would be Jews being seen in the light of that state’s actions.

    The predicted consequence of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine to Jews in “diaspora” is happening. Jews feel they are being scrutinized and called to account for Israel’s actions, on campuses and in the streets worldwide.

    Beinart places the Hamas violence of October 7, 2023 in context, as consistent with the history of suppressed peoples without peaceful means to contest their status, as is seen in slave revolts and anticolonial guerilla wars.

    I note that Beinart’s thoughts are resonant with what, almost 100 years ago, historian and then-Zionist Hans Kohn
    wrote of 1929 anti-Jewish riots after 12 years of Zionist colonization in Palestine under British authority:

    We pretend to be innocent victims. Of course the Arabs attacked us in August… They perpetrated all the barbaric acts that are characteristic of a colonial revolt… We have been in Palestine for 12 years [since the Balfour Declaration] without having even once made a serious attempt at seeking through negotiations the consent of the Indigenous people.

    Israeli retribution since October 7, 2023 on the 2 million-plus population of Gaza and their means of life—homes, utilities, schools, universities, hospitals—has officially resulted in over 46,000 deaths and innumerable injuries directly from IDF attacks.

    The medical journal
    Lancetestimates deaths as likely much higher, counting “deaths from starvation, disease, or cold.”

    Most of the population of Gaza was made homeless, huddled in improvised shelters, pushed by IDF warnings from one “safe zone” to another, often then bombed.

    Beinart’s book is an analysis of Zionist apologetics that are necessary to both regard oneself as moral and defend what Israel has done, from the 1947-49
    Nakba—terroristic expulsion of Palestinian Arabs from their communities within present-day Israel—to Gaza in 2025.

    He denounces dehumanizing, demonizing, Zionist lies about Palestinian resistance: “These claims don’t withstand even modest scrutiny. They’re less arguments than talismans. They ward off dangerous emotions like grief and shame.”

    Using the model of the dismantling of apartheid South Africa, he tries to envision what principles could heal Palestine
    :

    The details matter, but they matter less than the underlying principles. Wherever they live together, Jews and Palestinians should live under the same law. And they should work to repair the injustices of the past. The Israelis who were made refugees on October 7 should be allowed to go home. And the Palestinians who were made refugees in 1948 should be allowed to go home. Historical wrongs can never be fully undone. But the more sincere the effort, the greater the reconciliation that ensues.

    This would be a radical reconception of Jewish life in Palestine, that in abandoning the role of conquerors, Jews may live as Jewish Palestinians. He makes the point that whites relinquishing apartheid was a more peaceful process for South Africa than having it overthrown.

    In the summary chapter of the book, Beinart says Israel’s conduct is from a heretical Jewish tendency to believe Jewish people are sacred, rather than people with extra obligations: “So what if a few dreamers in Moorish Spain or the Silesian shtetl [Eastern European Jewish village] consoled themselves with the idea that deep within us lies a special spark of the divine? They didn’t have the power to do anything about it.”

    This self-deification, first proposed by an Israelite named Korach, who challenged Moses’ leadership, hadn’t mattered as much until the creation of “Jewish” national power: “All that changed with the creation of Israel. Only once Jews control a state with life-and-death power over millions of non-Jews does Korach’s claim of intrinsic Jewish sanctity become truly dangerous.”

    Beinart calls for liberation for Jews from the Zionist doctrine that Jews are only victims, never victimizers: “We can lift the weight that oppressing Palestinians imposes on Jewish Israelis, and indirectly, on Jews around the world… We can lay down the burden of seeing ourselves as the perennial victims of a Jew-hating world.”

    More than level of observance or denomination, the question of Zionism is going to be a fault line in Jewish fellowship, Beinart believes:

    Remove Jewish statehood from Jewish identity and, for many Jews around the world, it’s not clear what is left. But the benefit of recognizing that Jews are not fundamentally different from other people is that it allows us to learn from their experience. Jewish exceptionalism is less exceptional than we think. We are not the only people to use a story of victimhood to justify supremacy.

    Israel’s perpetual peril is the Arab population it has displaced but not exterminated. They are determined to redeem their birthright to live as freely in Palestine as Jews do.

    Instead of conquest, Beinart proposes a model of restraint, cooperation, and respect—along a line of Jewish thinkers from Ahad Ha’am to Judah Magnes to Albert Einstein.

    Many of the visions for Jewish settlement in Palestine were universalist and pacific.

    In 1927, Zionist writer (and Chaim Weizmann protege) Maurice Samuel mused, in his book
    I, The Jew, that Jewish civilization “for 60 generations” demonstrated “that neither conquest or oppression was necessary to its survival… a group can survive without mass murder.”

    Whether trauma or hubris allows Zionists in Israel and elsewhere to trust that model—finding the image of God even in their “enemies”—is the question.



    As tensions in the Middle East continue to escalate, it is more important than ever to critically assess the role of Jews in Israel’s actions. The Israeli government’s policies and actions have been widely condemned by the international community, with many calling for accountability and justice.

    As Jews, we have a responsibility to speak out against the injustices committed by the Israeli government. It is not enough to simply stand by and watch as our fellow Jews perpetuate violence and oppression against the Palestinian people. We must take a stand and hold our own community accountable for their actions.

    The continued occupation of Palestinian land, the systemic discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the violence and human rights abuses committed by the Israeli military cannot be ignored. As Jews, we must acknowledge the role that our community plays in perpetuating these injustices and work towards creating a more just and equitable future for all peoples in the region.

    It is time for us to confront the shame of what we have done and take a stand against the actions of the Israeli government. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed and marginalized and work towards a future where all people can live in peace and dignity. The time for silence is over – it is time to speak out and demand accountability for the injustices committed in our name.

    Tags:

    1. Jewish responsibility for Israel’s actions
    2. Israel’s actions and accountability
    3. Reflection on Jewish involvement in Israel’s policies
    4. Assessing Jewish complicity in Israel’s decisions
    5. Controversy surrounding Jewish connection to Israel’s actions
    6. Impact of Jewish support on Israel’s behavior
    7. Ethical considerations of Jewish responsibility for Israel’s actions
    8. Examining the shame of Jewish involvement in Israel’s policies
    9. Questioning the role of Jews in shaping Israel’s actions
    10. Critiquing Jewish accountability for Israel’s behavior.

    #Opinion #Shame #Weve #Assessing #Jews #Responsibility #Israels #Actions

  • Democrats set to pick new chair as party grapples with Trump’s flurry of actions




    CNN
     — 

    Democrats will choose their next national party chair and leadership team Saturday, closing out a monthslong debate over who is best suited to help the party rebrand and guide it through the next four years of the Trump administration.

    Three candidates have emerged as top contenders to lead the Democratic National Committee: Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party chair Ken Martin, Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

    The election of new party leaders comes as Democrats have grappled with the most effective way to challenge the torrent of action spurred by the Trump White House, which just this week included the president blaming diversity initiatives for a deadly DC plane collision, a federal funding freeze that was rescinded in less than 48 hours amid widespread backlash, and confirmation hearings for three controversial Cabinet nominees.

    Those seeking the party’s top job signaled that, without a national leader, Democrats had not addressed what some called the “chaos” of the last several days with enough force. During their final candidate forum Friday, chair hopefuls were asked to raise their hands if they felt the Democratic Party had responded “sufficiently” to the first nearly two weeks of Trump’s second term. Most candidates – including Martin, Wikler and O’Malley – kept their hands down.

    “Right now, our party frankly feels listless. It feels like there’s nobody at the helm,” said David Hogg, a gun control activist running for a DNC at-large vice chair position. “We need leadership, we need a vision for the pathway forward, and that’s one of the most important parts about these elections.”

    In addition to choosing the next chair, DNC members will elect seven additional officers: a vice chair for civic engagement and voter participation; a treasurer; a secretary; a national finance chair; and three at-large vice chairs.

    To win, a candidate will need a majority of votes cast. There are 450 voting members of the DNC, but the final number needed to win will depend on attendance.

    In the days leading up to the election, the three frontrunners released dozens of endorsements from key Democrats, only some of whom are able to vote in the election.

    Soon after Martin announced he’d been backed by South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, whose endorsement helped former President Joe Biden win the 2020 Democratic primary, Wikler announced he had the support of Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

    One key Democrat is likely to stay out of the race: former Vice President Kamala Harris. Though the party has spent weeks debating what went wrong during her 2024 presidential campaign, Harris is not expected to endorse a candidate in the race, according to a source familiar.

    Harris spoke on the phone this week with the three leading candidates in the race, a person familiar with the discussions told CNN. In the calls, which each lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, the candidates discussed their visions for the party and expressed their gratitude to Harris for her candidacy and commitment to stay involved with the party’s efforts going forward. The former vice president pledged to work closely with the winning candidate as soon as they’re elected, the source said.

    Without a Democratic president in the White House, leadership of the party will be fractured over the next four years. And with Democrats in the minority in both the House and Senate, much of the focus on Capitol Hill will be aimed at blocking Trump’s agenda rather than advancing the party’s policy priorities.

    The next chair will be tasked with helping guide the party forward as it looks to rebound from stinging losses last November. In addition to fundraising and messaging, the chair will also help steer the 2028 nominating process and create a campaign-in-waiting for the eventual Democratic nominee.

    They will also need to unite the committee and address several internal issues, including anger over a wave of layoffs last year, demands for increased transparency around budgets and spending, and frustration with campaign consultants.

    State party leaders, particularly in non-battleground states, have pushed chair candidates to vow to invest more in their states and rank-and-file members have called for a more democratized process to access exclusive committees made up of appointees.

    “I have never attended a DNC meeting where I left and said, ‘Huh, I learned something,’” Stephanie Campanha Wheaton, one of the Young Democrats of America’s DNC members and a Martin supporter, told CNN. “You show up and you are a pawn, and you nod your head yes to everything that has already been decided upon in committees that you don’t know how people got on.”

    At the heart of the leadership elections is a desire to make sense of the party’s 2024 losses and chart a path out of political obscurity. In more than a dozen forums – from the four party-run events to several held by outside groups and voting blocs within the DNC – questions have focused on how to win back young men and working class voters, how to fight disinformation, and how to make better use of the millions for dollars flowing into the party.

    “It’s a sign of a healthy party to actually question each other, debate each other, think about the path forward,” said Tory Gavito, a Wikler backer and the president of Way to Win, a women-led donor coalition that co-hosted a DNC forum with the Texas Democratic Party. “And in this debating, the goal is to win.”

    Martin, a DNC vice chair who leads the Association of State Democratic Committees and has chaired his state party since 2011, entered the race first and was an early frontrunner thanks to his yearslong relationships with the leaders of various state parties and other DNC members

    Joe Salas, a California DNC member backing Martin, said he believed the Minnesota chair understands the important role of local committees. On a personal level, he said Martin was the only high-ranking DNC leader to send him a congratulatory card welcoming him to the DNC when he was elected last year.

    “It goes to his point about organizing year-round: you can’t come to somebody a couple of months before an election and ask them to do something,” Salas said. “You have to make deposits before you make withdrawals.”

    Wikler experienced a late surge in support fueled by key endorsements from a group of Democratic governors – including DNC voting members Laura Kelly of Kansas, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico – and four large public sector unions, who issued a joint statement.

    Many of the DNC voters endorsing him have pointed to his track record in Wisconsin since becoming chair in 2019, including winning a liberal majority on the state Supreme Court that paved the way for more competitive legislative maps.

    “We felt like Ben Wikler was the one who could build worker power and expand the party’s base,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, of the joint union endorsement.

    In addition to AFT, Wikler was backed by the leaders of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, National Education Association and Service Employees International Union. Other unions have split their support among the leading candidates.

    O’Malley, meanwhile, has picked up public support from a handful of DNC members and high-profile Democrats such as Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine. His critiques of Martin and Wikler have also become more pointed.

    The former governor ribbed Wikler for declining to preemptively release a list of donors to his chair campaign ahead of a Friday night FEC deadline and suggested Martin’s support is not as strong as it seems during a gaggle with reporters after a candidate forum Thursday.

    “When the totally inevitable front runner, who’s been working at it for five years, shows himself not to be totally inevitable, I think it opens up for a larger debate,” O’Malley said.

    Ahead of the vote for chair, no candidate appeared to have enough support to win on the first ballot. Several DNC members said they expect the race will move to additional rounds of voting.

    One DNC member who asked not to be named to speak freely, said they believed that support for Wikler and Martin could shift if neither wins on the first ballot.

    “If it goes to a second ballot, it could be a complete shake-up,” the DNC member said.

    As of Friday, the three leading candidates were claiming to have levels of support that, if added together, would far surpass the number of actual voting members. Wikler’s campaign said he had 183 endorsements and O’Malley’s said he had 137 endorsements, though most of their names have remained private. Martin had released the names of about 200 backers by Friday evening, dozens more than his competitors have made public.

    “In the end, we’re going to find out on the first ballot who’s being on the up and up,” another DNC voter said. “Let’s be honest – if a candidate says they’ve got X votes and they come in 20, 30% less than that, the rest of their voters are going to wonder: Were they being sold a bill of goods on how strong their candidacy was?”



    The Democratic Party is gearing up to select a new chair as they navigate through the challenges posed by President Trump’s rapid-fire actions. With the new administration making sweeping changes on a daily basis, the Democrats are under pressure to regroup and strategize for the future.

    The upcoming leadership election will be crucial for the party as they seek to unify their base and mobilize against the Trump agenda. The new chair will have the daunting task of leading the party in a highly polarized political climate, where every move is scrutinized and contested.

    As the Democrats prepare to select their new leader, they must also focus on building a strong grassroots movement and reaching out to disaffected voters. The party’s response to Trump’s actions will be closely watched, and the new chair will play a key role in shaping the party’s message and strategy.

    The stakes are high for the Democratic Party, and the upcoming leadership election will set the tone for their future direction. As they navigate through the challenges posed by the Trump administration, the Democrats must come together and present a united front to effectively counter the president’s policies and actions.

    Tags:

    1. Democratic Party leadership
    2. Trump administration
    3. Political news
    4. Democratic National Committee
    5. Party chair selection
    6. Trump policies
    7. Political decisions
    8. Democratic Party challenges
    9. Political leadership
    10. Democratic Party future

    #Democrats #set #pick #chair #party #grapples #Trumps #flurry #actions

  • Philadelphia leaders respond to federal immigration actions, remind residents of rights



    CBS News Philadelphia

    Live

    Philadelphia leaders are gathering at City Hall on Friday to respond to recent federal immigration enforcement actions and remind residents of their rights and protections under the law.

    Officials from City Council, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office will speak in a news conference at 10 a.m. You can watch live in the player above or wherever CBS News Philadelphia is streaming.

    Leaders have spoken out about residents’ rights since President Trump undertook several executive orders and actions on immigration in the first days of his second term. 

    The orders and actions include one that aims to end birthright citizenship, have immigrant communities and other groups in the city on edge. Another order suspends federal funding for so-called “sanctuary cities,” which are places that restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

    The Trump administration has also instructed border agents to summarily deport migrants crossing into the country illegally without allowing them to request legal protection like an asylum hearing.

    In a recent “Trump preparedness hearing,” Philadelphia officials said the city has not changed its commitment to Executive Order No. 5-16, enacted during Mayor Jim Kenney’s administration. The order says the city will not honor ICE detainer requests unless supported by a judicial warrant and pertain to a person convicted of a felony involving violence. 

    The School District of Philadelphia has also had to respond to rumors that ICE has been spotted near school buildings (which the district has refuted). Superintendent Tony Watlington said ahead of his State of the Schools address the district is committed to “creating safe, welcoming spaces for our students and families … in alignment with the U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania state law…”

    ICE recently conducted a raid Wednesday at Complete Auto Wash in North Philadelphia, entering the lot and detaining seven employees suspected of being in the country illegally.

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    Joe Brandt

    Joe Brandt has been a digital content producer for CBS News Philadelphia since 2022. He is a Temple University graduate and was born and raised in Pitman, NJ.



    In light of recent federal immigration actions, Philadelphia leaders are reminding residents of their rights and standing up for the city’s immigrant community.

    Mayor Jim Kenney, along with other local officials, has voiced opposition to the recent crackdown on undocumented immigrants by the Trump administration. In a statement, Kenney emphasized that Philadelphia is a welcoming city that values diversity and inclusion.

    “We will not allow fear and intimidation to divide our community,” said Kenney. “We will continue to stand up for the rights of all our residents, regardless of their immigration status.”

    City Council President Darrell Clarke echoed Kenney’s sentiments, stating that Philadelphia will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities in targeting immigrant communities.

    “We will not turn our backs on our neighbors and friends who have come here seeking a better life,” said Clarke. “We will continue to protect and support our immigrant residents.”

    Philadelphia leaders have also been working to educate residents about their rights in the face of increased immigration enforcement. The city has provided resources and information on what to do if approached by immigration authorities, as well as legal assistance for those facing deportation.

    “We want all our residents to know that they have rights and protections under the law,” said City Solicitor Marcel Pratt. “We are here to support and defend our immigrant community in any way we can.”

    As the federal government continues to ramp up immigration enforcement, Philadelphia leaders are committed to standing up for the rights of all residents and ensuring that the city remains a safe and welcoming place for immigrants.

    Tags:

    1. Philadelphia immigration response
    2. Federal immigration actions in Philadelphia
    3. Philadelphia leaders on immigration rights
    4. Immigration advocacy in Philadelphia
    5. Know your rights in Philadelphia
    6. Philadelphia community leaders on immigration
    7. Philadelphia immigration policy updates
    8. Federal immigration actions impact on Philadelphia
    9. Philadelphia immigrant rights awareness
    10. Philadelphia leaders speak out on immigration

    #Philadelphia #leaders #respond #federal #immigration #actions #remind #residents #rights

  • Live updates: Trump news, executive actions and latest remarks on DC plane crash


    President Donald Trump listens to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross speak during a luncheon with the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda at the White House on June 12, 2019 in Washington, DC.

    Since President Donald Trump won the election in November, businesses across the globe have been bracing for higher tariffs — a key day one promise the president made.

    But over a week into his presidency, Trump has yet to enact any new tariffs.

    That could change, come 11:59 p.m. ET on Saturday — the deadline Trump set for when he said he will slap 25% tariffs on all Mexican and Canadian goods and potentially a 10% tariff on all Chinese goods.

    The tariffs, he said, will be imposed as a way of punishing the three nations, which Trump claims are responsible for helping people enter the country illegally and supplying fentanyl consumed in the US.

    Speaking to reporters from the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump said he meant business, especially with his tariff threats on Mexico and Canada. Should he be believed?

    Yes and no, said Trump’s former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

    Ross, who was one of a handful of initial Cabinet members in Trump’s first administration who kept their position for the entire four-year term, said he advocated for such exclusions when he advised Trump on tariff policies.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent supports a gradual approach as well as carving out exclusions for certain goods, he said in his confirmation hearing. But Howard Lutnick, Trump’s nominee to lead the Commerce Department, said he endorsed a blanket tariff approach. There are pros and cons to both, said Ross.

    “When we put the steel tariffs in, we got 11,000 requests for exclusions. There aren’t 11,000 legitimate requests,” Ross said, referring to the 25% tariff Trump levied on steel imported from most countries to the US in 2018 unless they satisfied certain qualifying exemption criteria. Many of those requests were denied, he added.

    In addition, exclusions for certain countries’ products or certain goods quickly created “a series of whack-a-moles,” he said.



    Here are the live updates on Trump news, executive actions, and the latest remarks on the DC plane crash:

    – President Trump has tweeted condolences to the families of the victims of the DC plane crash, calling it a “terrible tragedy.”
    – The White House has announced that President Trump will be meeting with aviation officials to discuss the safety of air travel in the wake of the crash.
    – Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to review and update safety regulations for commercial aviation.
    – The President has also stated that he will be monitoring the situation closely and providing any necessary assistance to the families of the victims.
    – Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story. #DCplanecrash #Trumpnews #executiveactions

    Tags:

    1. Trump news updates
    2. Executive actions update
    3. DC plane crash latest news
    4. President Trump remarks
    5. Breaking news on Trump administration
    6. White House updates
    7. Political news updates
    8. Trump administration developments
    9. DC plane crash updates
    10. Trump presidency news.

    #Live #updates #Trump #news #executive #actions #latest #remarks #plane #crash

  • Democrats leave ’emergency’ meeting vowing ‘street fight’ in response to Trump actions


    House Democrats launched a multilateral effort Wednesday to combat the flood of executive actions from President Trump, vowing to punch back through legislation, lawsuits and a blitz of counter-messaging.

    In a virtual meeting of the House Democratic Caucus — conducted on Zoom because the House is in recess — party leaders and Democratic committee heads laid out the contours of their strategy, which will lean heavily on efforts to inform voters of the real-world effects of Trump’s actions.

    It was an “emergency” discussion sparked by the Trump administration’s move — since rescinded — to freeze trillions of dollars for federal grants and loans. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told his troops to pursue all avenues of opposition — and take that fight to the streets, according to several Democrats who participated in the meeting.

    “I don’t want to speak for the leader,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said afterward, “but it was a broad call for action — and a vigorous one.”

    “House Democrats are now fully engaged. The bell has rung. I think we see this for the constitutional test that it is, and we’re going to be aggressively pushing back,” echoed Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.).

    “Leader Jeffries described it as a legal fight, a legislative fight and a street fight. And I couldn’t put it better.”

    The Democrats have a challenging road ahead as they seek to block Trump’s aggressive agenda, which features a broad dismantling of the federal government and how it operates.

    On the legislative front, Republicans control both chambers of Congress, leaving Democrats virtually powerless to bring bills to the floor.

    And as a legal matter, the courts have already ruled that congressional lawmakers lack the standing to challenge presidents when they refuse to spend federal dollars as Congress directed. That’s the controversy at the center of the White House’s move this week to freeze federal spending on hundreds of programs while agency officials weed out diversity initiatives and other efforts that don’t align with Trump’s priorities.

    Still, Democrats are hardly powerless in the debate, even from the minority.

    That’s because House Republicans have a historically slim majority, and GOP leaders are already struggling to unify their feuding conference for the sake of passing Trump’s ambitious legislative agenda. That will lend Democrats plenty of voice in the coming fights over must-pass legislation like funding the government and raising the debt ceiling, and they say they intend to use it.

    “Our votes are going to be needed at a whole bunch of key moments, starting just weeks from now,” Huffman said. “So we’re going to leverage those moments, we’re going to leverage the appropriations process, and we’re going to use whatever bully pulpits we have to awaken the American people to what’s going on here.”

    Democrats also see a roundabout solution to their lack of legal standing when it comes to challenging certain executive actions like impoundment: They intend to coordinate with allies outside the Capitol who do have that power, including state attorneys general and outside advocacy groups. Indeed, many of them had already sued this week over the administration’s spending freeze, and a federal judge on Tuesday had blocked it from taking effect immediately.

    Amid the outside pressure and an outcry on Capitol Hill, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Wednesday rescinded the order that had established the freeze, although the White House said agency reviews will continue to ensure that no “woke” programs are funded.

    The Democrats’ virtual meeting Wednesday began just as the news of the OMB’s reversal was breaking, and some saw the administration’s quick about-face as evidence that public outreach — and voter outrage — might be their biggest allies in the fight against Trump’s unilateral designs for remaking the government in his favor. Connolly called the freeze “a profound stumble.”

    “By freezing grants, loans and contracts, you have brought a lot of activity all across America — in red states and blue states — to a screeching halt,” he said. “This filters down to the most granular level of our communities, and that’s where this pain and hurt is going to be felt.”

    Jeffries and his leadership team are calling on all rank-and-file Democrats to stage “a day of action” this week, while the House is in recess. And lawmakers said they’re already taking that message to heart, staging town halls with voters and Zoom calls with advocacy groups to warn against what they see as a dire threat to America’s democratic traditions.

    In blue districts, that might mean preaching largely to the choir. But Huffman, for one, said he’s planning to step into more hostile territory to deliver the message.

    “I had a jam-packed town hall last night — I’m going to be doing more of them,” he said. “But I am looking at going into the Republican parts of my district to show what a wrecking ball this federal spending freeze is for the very people in communities who think Trump cares about them.”

    Amid the flood of executive actions, Democratic leaders have come under fire from liberals and other Trump critics who say the party hasn’t been aggressive enough in fighting back against the newly installed president.

    Connolly and Huffman both dismissed those criticisms, arguing that Democrats will have to pick their battles strategically if they hope to have any success.

    “It is Day 9. Everyone needs to take a deep breath,” Connolly said. “Democrats are alive and well, and absolutely prepared to provide vigorous resistance when we believe the law has been violated, or that what Donald Trump and his cronies are up to will inflict harm on our communities.”

    Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

    For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.



    In a recent emergency meeting, Democratic leaders have left with a renewed sense of determination and a vow to engage in a “street fight” against President Trump’s actions.

    The meeting was called in response to a series of controversial executive orders and decisions made by the Trump administration, including the recent decision to deploy federal agents to cities experiencing unrest.

    Democratic leaders expressed outrage at what they see as an abuse of power by the president and a blatant disregard for the rule of law. They vowed to do everything in their power to resist these actions and protect the rights of the American people.

    “We will not stand idly by while President Trump tramples on the Constitution and threatens the democratic values that our country was founded on,” said one Democratic lawmaker.

    The meeting ended with a call to action for all Democrats to join together in a united front against the Trump administration. They promised to fight back with every tool at their disposal, including legal challenges, grassroots organizing, and public protests.

    As they left the meeting, Democratic leaders were heard chanting, “This is a street fight, and we will not back down!” Their message was clear: they are ready to take on President Trump and defend the values they hold dear.

    Tags:

    1. Democrats
    2. Emergency meeting
    3. Street fight
    4. Trump actions
    5. Political response
    6. Democratic party
    7. Government opposition
    8. Political strategy
    9. Resistance movement
    10. Political activism

    #Democrats #leave #emergency #meeting #vowing #street #fight #response #Trump #actions

  • What Trump’s executive actions on EVs mean for car shoppers : NPR


    A Powering Michigan display about electric vehicles and charging is shown at the 2025 Detroit Auto Show on Jan. 10. The Biden administration promoted electric vehicles through a range of policies, which the Trump administration is in the process of reversing.

    A Powering Michigan display about electric vehicles and charging is shown at the 2025 Detroit Auto Show on Jan. 10. The Biden administration promoted electric vehicles through a range of policies, which the Trump administration is in the process of reversing.

    Bill Pugliano/Getty Images North America


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Bill Pugliano/Getty Images North America

    In the summer of 2021, before an array of union-made electric vehicles parked by the White House, then-President Joe Biden announced that he was setting an ambitious target: By the year 2035, 50% of new vehicles sold in the U.S. would be battery-powered.

    “There’s no turning back,” Biden vowed before taking a joy ride in a plug-in electric Jeep.

    Now President Trump is trying to, well, turn back.

    “We will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to our great American auto workers,” he said in his inaugural address. “In other words, you’ll be able to buy the car of your choice.”

    One of his first acts in office was to revoke Biden’s 50% EV target.

    That target was never enforceable on its own; it served as a signpost for other policies that would have more tangible effects.

    Likewise, Trump removing the target doesn’t change anything now. Consumer tax credits are still available; state mandates and federal emissions rules are still in place. That’s because an executive action, on its own, can’t undo or overwrite laws.

    But the U-turn is a big, blinking arrow toward where the administration is hoping to go.

    Next stop: The agencies

    Trump identified his target as the “electric vehicle mandate.” The federal government does not directly require that electric vehicles be sold — but Republicans have argued that regulations to cut vehicle emissions effectively serve as mandates because automakers would face high costs if they did not sell more EVs.

    Part of Trump’s roadmap ahead is to revise rules, particularly emissions standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency, but also fuel economy requirements from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. All push companies to build more EVs than they would otherwise.

    But before any regulations can change, an agency has to propose adjustments. Then, there are mandatory public comment periods, and the agencies are supposed to incorporate the feedback into any changes. That means it will take a few months at least. But Stephanie Brinley, associate director of AutoIntelligence at S&P Global Mobility, says she thinks it’ll be much faster than during the first Trump administration, when it took more than two years to rewrite auto regulations.

    “Part of the reason that it can happen faster is simply that the Trump administration’s team knows more than they did last time,” she says.

    A crossroads at Congress

    The Trump administration has also lambasted subsidies and incentives, like federal tax cuts, that encourage sales and domestic production of EVs, calling them market distortions.

    Trump’s executive actions do not affect the availability of EV tax credits; to change those will require an act of Congress. But both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, and they’re eager to find ways to save money to balance out the other kinds of tax cuts that Trump has promised. Eliminating EV incentives could help that cause.

    That summary makes it sound like reducing EV funding will be easy. That might not be true, because Trump and Republican lawmakers are also keen to promote U.S. manufacturing and jobs. Most of the federal funds for clean energy projects are going into districts that vote Republican — like the emerging battery belt for electric vehicles in the South. And those funds have helped encourage hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment that’s pouring into EV manufacturing.

    The Biden administration always sought to tie climate action to U.S. jobs, in part to build a more enduring coalition to support clean energy. Now that strategy will be put to the test, as conservative lawmakers weigh their distaste for the tax credits against the local jobs they’ve helped create.

    For example, last week, Rep. John James of Michigan — a Republican and a vocal critic of Biden’s EV policies — celebrated the end of “EV mandates,” saying he was “thrilled.” But he proceeded to ask that the House of Representatives “proceed with caution” when it came to rolling back manufacturing and energy tax credits, noting that job creators in his district and around the country are relying on them.

    James repeated a line many Republican lawmakers have used in reference to the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s capstone climate legislation, calling for a “scalpel,” instead of a sledgehammer or chainsaw, to dismantle it.

    Which incentives will be spared the scalpel? Expect some intense negotiations.

    A detour through the courts 

    Some of Trump’s first-day executive orders do have material impacts on the EV industry. He froze the disbursement of funds that were set aside to build new EV chargers, for instance.

    It was widely expected that Trump would not fund any more projects once he was in office, which was why the Biden administration was motivated to get money out the door near the end of his term. According to Atlas Public Policy, which closely tracks EV-related incentives, about two-thirds of federal funds for highway chargers have been allocated to states, and 72% of grants for community chargers have been awarded.

    Some of that money is already spent. But some has been promised and not yet delivered. How much can Trump block?

    “It’s a legal question that’s going to have to be answered by the courts,” says Levi McAllister, a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis and the head of its EV working group.

    Several companies are building federally funded EV chargers, including chains of travel stops that want to add EVs alongside their gas stations. At least one of them now says that they’re waiting for the administration’s next move.

    Kim Okafor, general manager of zero emissions for the travel stop chain Love’s, told NPR in a statement, “Love’s will continue to monitor related executive orders and subsequent changes in law to determine the next steps.”

    Meanwhile Pilot, another travel center company that received significant funding for chargers, says it tried to anticipate that government programs could change, and that it still plans to build out its EV network.

    There’s uncertainty about more than just charger funding. Many other elements of Trump’s EV roadmap will ultimately be up to the courts. That includes an anticipated fight between Trump and California over that state’s influential EV requirements. Those policies call for 100% of new vehicles to be zero-emission (including plug-in hybrids) by 2035, and have been adopted by other states. California’s authority to set such rules is unique, and Trump has ordered federal agencies to terminate state policies that would limit gas vehicle sales.  

    Trump’s order is expected to trigger a legal battle. Speaking to investors on Tuesday, General Motors CEO Mary Barra said that California’s regulations will be changing, in part because market conditions mean they’re not feasible — but that whether Trump’s executive action means they’re entirely void is simply not clear.

    “We’re very clear on the direction, but I don’t think we can, as an auto manufacturer right now … assume that that is gone at this precise moment,” she said.

    A new Lexus electric car is displayed at the New York International Auto Show on March 27, 2024. That year's show emphasized new electric and hybrid models. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

    A new Lexus electric car is displayed at the New York International Auto Show on March 27, 2024. The show emphasized new electric and hybrid models.

    Spencer Platt/Getty Images North America


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Spencer Platt/Getty Images North America

    Final destination? 

    Trump’s orders on EVs emphasize consumer choice. And that’s just fine with the auto industry, which has welcomed the prospect of easing regulations.

    “There’s a saying in the auto business: you can’t get ahead of the customer,” John Bozzella, the president of the trade group representing automakers, said in a statement responding to Trump’s first-day action.

    The flip side is that you don’t want to get behind the customer, either.

    “Let’s say they roll back everything,” says Levi McAllister, the lawyer. “The question still remains: Is there a demand for these products? And if there is, there will be manufacturing for those products.”

    Right now, EVs make up about 10% of U.S. sales. And according to JD Power’s Elizabeth Krear, the percentage of new vehicle shoppers who say they’re “very interested” in buying an EV recently reached a two-year high of 29%. Automakers like Ford and GM have argued that because EVs are fun to drive and cheaper to own, they’ll eventually win over a larger chunk of shoppers.

    At the same time, car companies also have to consider regulations in other countries, where political leaders remain concerned about the consequences of catastrophic global warming. Electric vehicles have a significantly smaller carbon footprint than gas-powered vehicles, and are a key element of the global plan to fight climate change.

    “The global stage is still moving in this direction,” says Stephanie Brinley, the S&P analyst. “So automakers still have to develop the technology … because they’re going to have to sell it somewhere else.”

    A vote of confidence in critical minerals 

    For most of the EV supply chain, the road ahead is full of uncertainty, with the Trump administration angling to roll back a whole suite of supportive policies.

    But there’s one corner of the supply chain where Trump signaled he’d stay the course: the raw materials for EV batteries. Currently, China dominates the mining and processing of many critical minerals. Building a domestic supply chain was an economic and national security imperative for Biden — so too, for Trump. In his executive orders on energy, Trump specifically named critical minerals as a national priority that deserves federal funding.

    Rhyolite Ridge, a massive lithium project in Nevada being developed by the company Ioneer, received a government loan for nearly a billion dollars in the final days of the Biden administration. Bernard Rowe, the company’s managing director, points out that Barack Obama was president when they drilled the project’s first hole.

    “We’ve been through four administrations during that time,” he says. “And what I would say is that fortunately, we’ve enjoyed very strong bipartisan support for these critical minerals supply chains right through those four administrations.”

    David Klanecky, of the battery recycling company Cirba Solutions, is similarly bullish about Trump’s support for the minerals. But he adds a caveat. “I think there’s a little bit of a conundrum that’s occurring,” he says, arguing that the entire supply chain needs to be supported if the goal is to compete with China and build American jobs.

    “I think it’s great that they’re supportive of critical minerals, but if there’s no one buying vehicles or using batteries, like, you don’t need the critical minerals,” he says. “It’s a two-sided story.”



    President Trump recently signed two executive actions aimed at promoting the development and adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) in the United States. These actions could have significant implications for car shoppers in the coming years.

    The first executive action directs federal agencies to develop a comprehensive strategy for increasing the availability of EV charging infrastructure across the country. This could make it easier for car owners to charge their vehicles and alleviate concerns about range anxiety, a common barrier to EV adoption.

    The second executive action establishes a new interagency working group to coordinate federal efforts to support the domestic production of critical minerals used in EV batteries. This could potentially lead to increased production of EVs in the U.S., which could result in more options for car shoppers and potentially lower prices.

    Overall, these executive actions signal a shift towards promoting EVs in the U.S. and could lead to more incentives and support for consumers looking to purchase electric vehicles. Car shoppers should keep an eye on these developments as they could impact their future car-buying decisions.

    Tags:

    1. Trump executive actions
    2. EVs
    3. Electric vehicles
    4. Car shoppers
    5. NPR news
    6. Government policies
    7. Automotive industry
    8. Environmental impact
    9. Clean energy
    10. Transportation sector

    #Trumps #executive #actions #EVs #car #shoppers #NPR

  • Trump’s Early Actions Mirror Project 2025


    President Donald Trump made clear during his campaign that he wanted little to do with Project 2025, the sweeping and controversial conservative policy blueprint created by the Heritage Foundation. But just days into his second term, many of Trump’s early actions align with the Project 2025 agenda.

    An analysis by TIME found that nearly two-thirds of the executive actions Trump has issued so far mirror or partially mirror proposals from the 900-page document, ranging from sweeping deregulation measures to aggressive immigration reform. 

    Democrats had seized on Trump’s connection to Project 2025 during the campaign, pointing out that many of the playbook’s contributors previously worked for Trump or had connections to his orbit. Trump repeatedly said he had “no idea who is behind” the conservative blueprint and that some of its ideas were “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” He appeared to soften his stance after winning the election, telling TIME in November, “I don’t disagree with everything in Project 2025, but I disagree with some things.”

    Despite Trump’s past disavowals, many of the individuals involved in drafting Project 2025, such as Russell Vought and Brendan Carr, have been tapped to serve in prominent positions in his Administration. Vought was nominated to run the Office of Management and Budget, while Carr was tapped to lead the Federal Communications Commission. The Heritage Foundation declined to comment for this story. 

    A White House spokesperson tells TIME that Trump “had nothing to do with Project 2025” and that his first raft of executive orders “delivered on the promises that earned him a resounding mandate from the American people – securing the border, restoring common sense, driving down inflation, and unleashing American energy.”

    When Project 2025 was published in April 2023, it was designed as a roadmap for a future Republican presidential administration, with the goal of reshaping the federal government in ways that align with conservative, free-market values. The initiative’s agenda includes aggressive deregulation, curbs on immigration, challenges to civil-rights protections, and a substantial reduction of the federal workforce, all with the aim of reducing the size and scope of government while reasserting executive authority.

    While many of Trump’s executive orders resemble Project 2025’s proposals, not all of them fully align with the document’s recommendations. Some executive actions, such as the push to declare an energy emergency and the attempt to challenge birthright citizenship, are not directly addressed in the blueprint, for example. But dozens of executive actions rolled out by the new administration reflect Project 2025’s core objectives, particularly in areas like immigration reform, government restructuring, and deregulation.

    “I suspect a lot of liberal think tanks are green with envy that a conservative think tank has this much sway over the policy agenda,” says Bill Galston, chair of the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program and a former advisor to President Bill Clinton. He adds that the influence of think tanks, however, “is bound to decline once the President and the Republican majority in Congress start working together on legislation.”

    Still, by embracing some elements of the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint, Trump’s second term appears shaped by a vision that was laid out before his return to the White House, says Skye Perryman, chief executive of Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that recently launched Democracy 2025, a resource center created in response to Project 2025 that is tracking the new administration’s actions. “This is a playbook that we’ve seen before and we knew would be implemented,” Perryman says. “The real shame is that on the campaign trail, Trump did not level with Americans. He didn’t seek to try to convince Americans that this was his agenda. He acted as if he didn’t have anything to do with Project 2025, when we know and have seen that he’s really seeking to accelerate that agenda.”

    Here’s a breakdown of some of the parallels between Trump’s executive actions and Project 2025.

    Immigration and border security

    Trump’s early actions on immigration and the border demonstrate share Project 2025’s vision for a more aggressive, militarized approach to immigration enforcement. For example, the blueprint advocates for the use of active-duty military personnel and National Guardsmen to assist in border security efforts, including arrest operations. Trump took similar steps almost immediately, signing an executive order on his first day in office calling for the deployment of National Guard troops to the southern border. 

    Trump also issued an executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which is similar to Project 2025’s recommendation for an “indefinite curtailment” of refugee admissions. Trump has also moved to extend the restrictions on asylum seekers and halt certain immigration pathways—policies similar to Project 2025’s calls to limit refugee and asylum programs as part of a broader strategy to control immigration.

    Environment and energy policy

    Trump’s early actions on environmental regulation and energy policy also mirror recommendations from Project 2025, particularly the blueprint’s stance against climate change initiatives that some Republicans believe are unreasonably burdensome to American businesses. 

    On the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order promoting the use of Alaska’s vast energy resources, echoing Project 2025’s call for expanded oil and gas drilling in the region. Project 2025 also argues for Alaska energy exploration to protect national security, emphasizing the need to unlock its natural resources “as a counter to growing Russian and Chinese interest in Antarctic resources.” Trump’s executive order established a policy to harvest Alaska’s natural resources and mandated federal agencies to expedite permitting, leasing, and development of Alaskan resources, with a strong focus on liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. 

    Trump also re-signed an executive order pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement, a signature policy action of his first term that is directly in line with Project 2025’s stance. The blueprint suggested that America’s exit from international climate accords would strengthen national sovereignty and economic competitiveness by removing restrictions on industries. “The next conservative Administration should rescind all climate policies from its foreign aid programs (specifically USAID’s Climate Strategy 2022–2030); shut down the agency’s offices, programs, and directives designed to advance the Paris Climate Agreement; and narrowly limit funding to traditional climate mitigation efforts,” Project 2025 says.

    Read More: What Happened the Last Time Trump Withdrew From the Paris Agreement

    Trump also made a move to curtail offshore wind development, which the blueprint characterized as part of an agenda that would close off large sections of the ocean to commercial activity.

    Government reform and bureaucratic restructuring

    One of the central goals of Project 2025 is to reshape the federal bureaucracy, reducing its size and influence, and empowering the executive branch. Trump issued a number of executive orders on his first day in office that reflect those objectives.

    He revived the Schedule F executive order—a move he first introduced in 2020—that aims to reclassify certain federal employees as political appointees, effectively making it easier to remove them. Project 2025 had called for the reinstatement of this policy. The move has sparked concern among Democrats and civil service advocates, who view the policy as an attack on the independence of the federal workforce. Trump argues that it is necessary to root out political bias and inefficiency in government agencies, a point that is central to both his own Administration’s agenda and the broader goals of Project 2025.

    Project 2025 also outlines plans for significant cuts to the federal workforce, focusing on reducing regulations and eliminating agencies seen as unnecessary or counterproductive. Trump’s early actions suggest he is taking steps in this direction, such as streamlining government functions, implementing a hiring freeze for all federal civilian employees, and focusing on reducing the size and scope of regulatory agencies. While these moves are not identical to Project 2025’s specific proposals—which include eliminating the Departments of Homeland Security and Education—they reflect the overarching philosophy of shrinking government.

    Cultural issues

    Trump has also adopted several social policy changes that echo Project 2025, particularly concerning issues of gender identity and diversity initiatives. One of Trump’s first executive orders reversed Biden-era protections for transgender individuals in the military, reinstating the ban on transgender service members, which aligns with Project 2025’s recommendation to “proudly state that men and women are biological realities” and eliminate policies that conflate gender identity with biological sex. 

    Trump also took steps to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government. One executive order rescinded policies that required federal contractors to promote affirmative action and diversity programs, in line with Project 2025’s call to eliminate initiatives that promote racial or gender-based quotas.

    Foreign relations

    Trump’s early actions also include a return to a more isolationist and unilateral approach to foreign policy, which echoes Project 2025’s stance on international agreements and alliances. He signed an executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization, marking a return to the foreign policy positions that defined much of his first term. Project 2025 explicitly called for this action, describing the WHO as an ineffective and politically biased organization that undermines American sovereignty.

    In addition to his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Trump has also taken steps to distance the U.S. from other international partnerships, consistent with the isolationist philosophy outlined in Project 2025. One executive order issued states, “no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States,” claiming that the “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.”



    In his first few weeks in office, President Trump has already taken actions that align with the goals of Project 2025, a strategic plan developed by his administration to make America great again. From rolling back regulations to promoting job growth, Trump’s early actions are setting the stage for a prosperous future for the country.

    One of the key aspects of Project 2025 is deregulation, and Trump has wasted no time in fulfilling this objective. Through executive orders and other measures, he has begun dismantling regulations that have burdened businesses and stifled economic growth. By cutting red tape and streamlining government processes, Trump is creating a more business-friendly environment that will encourage investment and expansion.

    Another focus of Project 2025 is job creation, and Trump has already made strides in this area. By renegotiating trade deals, incentivizing companies to keep jobs in the U.S., and investing in infrastructure projects, Trump is working to bring back jobs that have been outsourced overseas. His commitment to American workers is evident in his efforts to revitalize industries like manufacturing and coal mining, which have suffered from globalization and automation.

    Overall, Trump’s early actions are in line with the vision laid out in Project 2025. By prioritizing deregulation, job creation, and economic growth, Trump is setting the stage for a stronger and more prosperous America. As his administration continues to implement the initiatives outlined in Project 2025, we can expect to see even greater strides towards making America great again.

    Tags:

    1. Trump administration
    2. Project 2025
    3. Early actions
    4. Political decisions
    5. Government policies
    6. President Trump
    7. Policy analysis
    8. Leadership strategies
    9. Political agenda
    10. Future projections

    #Trumps #Early #Actions #Mirror #Project

  • Kansas’ Self questions Dickinson’s actions in win vs. TCU


    Jan 22, 2025, 11:19 PM ET

    FORT WORTH, Texas — Kansas big man Hunter Dickinson grabbed an offensive rebound and had the ball cradled into his body with both arms, with no intention of letting TCU take it away from him.

    Coach Bill Self wasn’t pleased with how that play ended for his preseason AP All-American center, who never gave in as Trazarien White tried to wrestle the ball away — even after officials blew the whistle in the second half of the 12th-ranked Jayhawks’ 74-61 win Wednesday night.

    “I thought it was asinine that our guy would hang onto the ball like that,” Self said.

    The 7-foot-2 Dickinson and 6-6 White remained tangled even while stumbling out of bounds as whistles blew to stop the action. TCU guard Vasean Allette and freshman Malick Diallo also reached for the ball. Once Dickinson finally gave up the ball, officials reviewed the play and issued technical fouls to him and White.

    “That was a bonehead play. But what made it a bonehead play as much as anything … when the whistle blows, you stop. And I’m sure they blew it several times,” Self said. “Cost us a possession, so yeah, I wasn’t happy to see that at all.”

    The Horned Frogs had possession after the tie-up and White responded with an alley-oop dunk on a pass from Noah Reynolds with 12:44 left to put them up 48-47. That was the last time they led.

    Dickinson, who finished with a team-high 16 points and nine rebounds, wasn’t one of the players who Kansas brought into the postgame interview.

    TCU coach Jamie Dixon, who was at the opposite end of the court from where the players got tangled up, had a much different reaction to the play than Self.

    “It was unimportant, I guess,” said Dixon, who didn’t think there was anything dirty or vicious about the play.

    “I don’t even know what the T’s were for, but I guess the officials told them to stop. They didn’t do what they were told to do by the officials.”



    In a thrilling victory over TCU, the Kansas Jayhawks came out on top, but not without some controversy. Self, the head coach of Kansas, faced criticism for his decisions during the game. Many fans and analysts are questioning his choices and wondering if they ultimately helped or hurt the team’s chances of winning.

    Some of the key questions being raised include:

    – Why did Self choose to stick with certain players for extended periods of time, even when they were struggling on the court?
    – Did his defensive strategy against TCU’s star player backfire, leading to costly points for the opposition?
    – Was his lack of timeouts called at crucial moments a missed opportunity to regroup and make necessary adjustments?

    As the Jayhawks continue their season, these questions may linger as fans and critics alike debate Self’s coaching decisions. Only time will tell if his choices will ultimately lead to success or hinder the team’s progress.

    Tags:

    1. Kansas basketball
    2. Self questions Dickinson
    3. TCU game
    4. College basketball
    5. Kansas vs. TCU
    6. Bill Self
    7. Hunter Dickinson
    8. NCAA basketball
    9. Kansas Jayhawks
    10. Big 12 conference

    #Kansas #questions #Dickinsons #actions #win #TCU

  • DBZ Actions Figures GK Son Goku Figure Statue Figurine Super Saiyan Collection Birthday Gifts PVC 3.5 Inch


    Price: $21.98
    (as of Jan 23,2025 23:30:06 UTC – Details)



    Son Goku, one of the world’s post popular characters.
    This toys Son Goku Figure will bring their favorite characters from the big screen to real life, without leaving the comfort of your home!
    Not only does it make an exciting addition to your own toy collection, it is also a fun gift for any occasion.
    Even if you’re not a fan yourself, you can grab a set for your children or your friends and see their eyes light up with joy!

    Made out of durable plastic PVC
    Condition: 100% NEW
    Size: 3.5″
    Warm Suggestion: Unsuitable for Children Under the age of 15

    【 DESIGNED BY KELAKE GK 】 This product is designed and developed by KELAKE GK animation studio, from manufacturing and inspections to sales and post-sales support， Best of all, we offer them at reasonable prices!
    【 GREAT ADDITION TO THE COLLECTION 】 】 Combine this Son Goku Figure to re-create dramatic fight scenes, letting the world of DBZ unfold right on your tabletop!
    【 RIGHT GIFT 】A Right Gift Idea For Kids ( girls ) In Birthday , Children’s day !
    【 ENVIRONMENTAL AND DURABLE 】This Son Goku Figure made out of environmental，durable material plastic PVC！
    【 60 DAY WARRANTY 】 All products we sell are in new condition and checked carefully before shipment,If you have any question, just contact us, we will do our best to help you！

    Customers say

    Customers appreciate the toy figure’s quality, size, and value. They find it looks nice, has good details, and is a good hand-sized decor or statue for room. Many consider it worth the price and a good gift. However, opinions differ on the build quality.

    AI-generated from the text of customer reviews


    Introducing the DBZ Actions Figures GK Son Goku Figure Statue Figurine Super Saiyan Collection!

    This incredible PVC figure stands at 3.5 inches tall and features Son Goku in his iconic Super Saiyan form. Perfect for any Dragon Ball Z fan, this statue is a must-have for your collection.

    Whether you’re looking for a birthday gift for a friend or simply want to add to your own collection, this Son Goku figure is sure to impress. The attention to detail in this statue is truly remarkable, capturing Goku’s powerful stance and fierce expression.

    Don’t miss out on the chance to own this amazing piece of Dragon Ball Z memorabilia. Order yours today and bring the power of Super Saiyan Goku into your home! #DBZ #SonGoku #SuperSaiyan #Collectibles #BirthdayGifts
    #DBZ #Actions #Figures #Son #Goku #Figure #Statue #Figurine #Super #Saiyan #Collection #Birthday #Gifts #PVC #Inch,vegeta finally achieves the super saiyan 3 transformation in dragon ball
    daima

  • Hello, how can I help you today?
Gathering thoughts.. ...
Powered by AI
Chat Icon