Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Democrats
Senate Democrats Are Attacking Tulsi Gabbard for the Wrong Reasons
Preferring to defend spy agencies and line up behind the hawkish consensus, the bipartisan elite ignores the director of national intelligence nominee’s rampant Islamophobia.
Still leaning left? Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump’s nominee to be director of national intelligence, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.(Daniel Heuer / Bloomberg via Getty Images) Donald Trump’s slate of presidential nominees has been top-heavy with figures described as “controversial” and “polarizing”—but who might more accurately be describe as oddballs and misfits: Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard. This group stands variously accused of alleged statutory rape (Gaetz), rape (Hegseth), antivax politics and sexual assault (Kennedy), and authoritarian aspirations (Patel). Gaetz has been the only one of these contentious nominees forced to withdraw—so far. Hegseth won a narrow confirmation. But even among this list of oddballs with repellent personal histories and authoritarian goals, Tulsi Gabbard—Trump’s nominee to be director of national intelligence (DNI)—stands out, since what makes her strange are her wild ideological shifts.
Former Hawaii governor Neil Abercrombie, a disillusioned former supporter, describes Gabbard as a “shapeshifter.” Abercrombie, a Democrat, was quoted in a New York Times profile that documented Gabbard’s wild dance across the political spectrum. She was born into the Science of Identity sect, described by the New York Times as “a secretive offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement vehemently opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion, and deeply suspicious of Islam.” Although she now says she is not associated with the Science of Identity Foundation and simply identifies as Hindu, the movement has been instrumental in supporting her throughout her career. Notably, when she was first elected to the Hawaii statehouse in 2002, she shared the Science of Identity’s opposition to abortion and marriage equality. Later on, when running for Congress as a Democrat, she disavowed those positions, although she has held steadfast in her Islamophobia, one of the few consistent commitments in her volatile political career.
In 2003, she was caught up in nationalist enthusiasm for George W. Bush’s war on terror and joined the military. But witnessing the carnage in Iraq, she turned against what she calls “regime change wars.” Elected to Congress in 2010, she had a biographical profile—military veteran, a woman, a racial minority, and skewing mildly conservative on social issues—that made her attractive to the party’s establishment. She was groomed to be a rising star but burned her bridges with the establishment by supporting Bernie Sanders for president in 2016. When Trump won in 2016, she was actively courted by MAGA leaders like Steve Bannon, who rightly saw her discontent with mainstream Democrats as a sign that she could be a potential recruit. In 2016, she met with the victorious candidate at Trump Towers when he was president elect.
Gabbard’s mix of foreign policy preferences—a deep aversion to regime change wars and democracy building efforts, unwavering support for Israel, a desire to deepen America’s ties to the Hindu nationalism in India—aligned her with Trump and Bannon’s America First foreign policy.
Like the MAGA movement, Gabbard is xenophobic but also wary of military interventions involving boots on the ground. This heterodox foreign policy mix also led her question America’s support of Ukraine—both before and after Russia’s invasion—and to praise Edward Snowden, who leaked a treasure trove of National Security Agency secrets in 2013, as a whistleblower who deserves a pardon. These latter two positions are the main source of national security elite aversion to Gabbard. As the Times notes, “Her nomination has alarmed national security officials of both parties, and Mr. Trump has privately told allies that hers is the cabinet confirmation he is most worried about.”
Given Gabbard’s checkered political career, there’s reason for people across the political spectrum, ranging from traditional conservative Republicans to liberals to leftists to oppose her nomination. Her one base of support might be MAGA ideologues who care about foreign policy—notably former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. But it’s unclear whether this faction has enough sway over Republicans in the Senate to successfully defend her from attacks by the foreign policy elite.
Current Issue
In the nomination hearings held on Thursday, Senate Democrats made a move—politically shrewd but dismaying in policy terms—to play up Gabbard’s foreign policy heterodoxy, especially her former defense of Snowden, which she only partly recanted. In terms of the dynamics of the Senate, this move makes sense. Republicans hold a majority of 53 Senate seats. To defeat a Trump nominee, Democrats need to flip four Republicans, otherwise the GOP will have 50 votes plus Vice President JD Vance as a tie breaker.
The mathematical logic means that to defeat Gabbard, Democrats needed to make a pitch that appeals to Republicans. But beyond the math, there is the broader political fact that in response to Trumpism, establishment Democrats prefer to build a centrist coalition by shoring up the national security consensus. Democratic Party leaders are deeply wedded to a policy of ancien régime restoration—which means that when they challenge Trumpism on foreign policy it is for his heterodoxy that offends the national security establishment (notably wanting a rapprochement with Russia and questioning the honesty and competence of intelligence agencies).
In the past, Gabbard has praised Snowden as a “brave” whistleblower who deserved clemency. She has now backtracked on this by saying that he “broke the law” and that she would not as head of the DNI support clemency. Both Republicans and Democrats hit her hard on this issue, with Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet thundering, “This is when you need to answer the questions of people whose votes you’re asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation. Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? This is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high.”
Gabbard still refused to describe Snowden as a traitor—which Democrats seized on as a means to discredit her. On X, formerly Twitter, Bennet posted, “Four times Tulsi Gabbard was asked if Edward Snowden is a traitor for releasing U.S. secrets & four times she declined to answer Democrats or Republicans. Anyone who refuses to label a traitor to the U.S. as a traitor is completely unqualified to lead our intelligence community.”
What Bennet refused to even consider was the possibility that, far from being a traitor, Snowden was a patriotic whistleblower who did the public a great service by revealing real government abuses—some of which were subsequently redressed by Congress.
Bennet and other Democrats on the committee were playing their old game of running to the right of Republicans on foreign policy. While this might be seen as smart politics in centrist circles—and could well sink Gabbard’s nomination—it’s questionable whether the public as a whole shares this implicit enthusiasm for the national security establishment and intelligence agencies. Trump twice won the presidency by being the voice of anti-system rage, with both the national security consensus and the intelligence services among his prime targets. Conversely, Democrats have twice lost to Trump by criticizing him as a disruptive force on foreign policy, while embracing such stalwarts of militarism as Henry Kissinger (extolled by Hillary Clinton in 2016) and Dick Cheney (celebrated by Kamala Harris in 2024). This strategy of being the hawkish pro-system party has torn the Democratic Party apart and alienated key parts of the party’s base.
Popular
“swipe left below to view more authors”Swipe →
What’s appalling about the whole spectacle is that there are many legitimate reasons for challenging Gabbard’s nomination—but scant interest in the Senate in raising these questions. As journalist Mehdi Hassan noted, “Sad that Democrats—instead of hitting Gabbard for her Islamophobia and support for genocide in Gaza and support for Assad and her alleged membership of a weird cult—are obsessing over the one thing she’s right about: Edward Snowden.”
If Gabbard is defeated, there will be little reason for regret. She deserves to go down, but is being targeted for the wrong reasons. The true tragedy is that the Democratic Party elite remains committed to keeping foreign debate as narrow as possible, eagerly enlisting as the bodyguards to an increasingly out of touch and discredited national security establishment.
More from
Jeet Heer
The former president’s unexpectedly powerful farewell address rightly condemned the very oligarchy he empowered.
When voters are consumed with anti-system rage, a criminal rap sheet is no barrier to high office.
Senate Democrats have recently come under fire for their criticism of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, but their attacks are misguided and unfair.Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, has been vocal about her opposition to military intervention and regime change wars, a stance that has put her at odds with many in her own party. While some Senate Democrats have accused her of being too cozy with dictators like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, this criticism overlooks the important principles of non-intervention and diplomacy that Gabbard is advocating for.
Instead of attacking Gabbard for her willingness to engage in dialogue with foreign leaders, Senate Democrats should be applauding her for being a voice of reason and advocating for peaceful solutions to global conflicts. By demonizing Gabbard and attempting to silence her dissenting views, Senate Democrats are only further dividing the party and stifling important discussions on foreign policy.
It’s time for Senate Democrats to re-evaluate their attacks on Gabbard and recognize the value of her perspective in shaping a more peaceful and diplomatic approach to international relations. Let’s not let political differences overshadow the importance of promoting peace and diplomacy on the global stage.
Tags:
Senate Democrats, Tulsi Gabbard, political attacks, Democratic party, US Senate, 2020 election, political controversy, political news, Tulsi Gabbard criticism, political analysis
#Senate #Democrats #Attacking #Tulsi #Gabbard #Wrong #ReasonsDemocrats 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:
- Democratic Party leadership
- Trump administration
- Political news
- Democratic National Committee
- Party chair selection
- Trump policies
- Political decisions
- Democratic Party challenges
- Political leadership
- Democratic Party future
#Democrats #set #pick #chair #party #grapples #Trumps #flurry #actions
Democrats who helped to pass the Laken Riley Act failed their first test of the second Trump era
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law. The legislation expands the federal government’s mandatory detention rules for unauthorized immigrants to include theft-related crimes, like shoplifting, and grants state attorneys general the right to sue the federal government over what they deem as insufficient immigration enforcement.
The bill, named after a Georgia woman killed by an undocumented immigrant, tracks with Trump’s tendency to politicize murders and has been used by right-wingers to engender racist anger toward immigrants, as I wrote last year.
The bill received bipartisan support in the House and Senate, despite civil rights groups and various Democratic lawmakers highlighting its risks of increasing racial profiling and suspending due process for people accused of crimes. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., for example, voted against the bill, telling MSNBC’s Chris Hayes the law means “people are going to be targeted because they’re brown.”
Given how Trump’s immigration officials already appear to be engaging in disturbing profiling — and ensnaring legal U.S. residents in their anti-immigrant round-ups — that seems like a fair prediction.
In a speech to the House last week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., (who also voted against the bill) spoke out about its potential risks to due process. “In the wake of tragedy, we are seeing a fundamental erosion of our civil rights,” she said. “In this bill, if a person is so much as accused of a crime — if someone wants to point a finger and accuse someone of shoplifting — they would be rounded up and put into a private detention camp and sent out for deportation without a day in court.”
And New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, another Democrat who opposed the bill, offered a personal anecdote to MSNBC host Chris Hayes to suggest that those who supported the bill — including fellow Democrats — have made a decision that will tar their legacies.
He said:
I had a nonpolitical person in the Capitol who’s never came up to me and talked about politics, but he looked at me and said Democrats are going to rue the day when they allowed something like that bill we just passed, that allows — literally — Dreamers to be indefinitely detained. Or a child who steals a candy bar. He said this is going to come back in history to really, really haunt those people that supported this bill.
Watch the clip here:
Indeed, Democrats who supported this bill seem to have acquiesced to conservatives’ fear-mongering for the sake of political expediency, and in the process they may have subjected many of their constituents to racial profiling.
Because Republicans now control the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House, they didn’t need Democratic votes to pass this bill. Democrats could have collectively denounced the bill and advocated for the bipartisan bill they negotiated earlier, which sought to address problems with U.S. immigration laws without seemingly opening the door to the vilification and abuse of immigrants.
But in what was arguably the first test of congressional Democrats’ willingness to confront the conservative movement’s dubious politicking, I think it’s fair to say they failed.
The passing of the Laken Riley Act was a significant victory for Democrats, as it aimed to protect vulnerable communities from discrimination and ensure equal rights for all. However, their first test in the second Trump era has shown that some Democrats who supported the act may have failed to live up to its principles.Despite their promises to uphold the values of equality and justice, some Democrats have shown a lack of courage and conviction in standing up to the Trump administration’s attempts to roll back progress on civil rights. Whether it be through their silence on key issues or their willingness to compromise on important legislation, these Democrats have not fully lived up to the promises they made when passing the Laken Riley Act.
It is crucial for Democrats to remain steadfast in their commitment to protecting the rights of all Americans, especially in the face of a hostile administration that seeks to undermine these rights at every turn. The first test of the second Trump era has shown that some Democrats may need to reevaluate their priorities and find the courage to stand up for what is right, no matter the political cost.
As we move forward in this new era, it is essential for Democrats to remember the values that they claim to uphold and to hold themselves accountable for their actions. The Laken Riley Act was a step in the right direction, but it will take more than just words to ensure that all Americans are treated with dignity and respect. Let this be a wake-up call for Democrats to do better and to fight harder for the rights of all.
Tags:
- Democrats
- Laken Riley Act
- Trump era
- Legislation
- Political failures
- Bipartisan cooperation
- Government accountability
- Public policy
- Partisan politics
- Legislative process
#Democrats #helped #pass #Laken #Riley #Act #failed #test #Trump #era
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:
- Democrats
- Emergency meeting
- Street fight
- Trump actions
- Political response
- Democratic party
- Government opposition
- Political strategy
- Resistance movement
- Political activism
#Democrats #leave #emergency #meeting #vowing #street #fight #response #Trump #actions
RFK Jr. clashes with Democrats over past comments about vaccines, abortion rights
Washington
CNN
—
Senate Democrats grilled Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his various controversial statements including his stance on vaccines during his confirmation hearing to be President Donald Trump’s health and human services secretary, and most left feeling overwhelmingly unsatisfied by the answers they received.
The Democratic lawmakers confronted Kennedy with previous statements he had made to press him on his role in a deadly measles outbreak in Samoa in 2019, his views on Covid-19, and his previous claims falsely linking vaccines to autism in children. Throughout the hearing, the Democrats repeatedly asked Kennedy to make commitments that he would not purge employees for political reasons or use his perch to personally benefit financially, without getting clear answers.
Republicans meanwhile, seemed largely receptive to Kennedy even though his past stances – particularly on abortion – do not align with their conservative ideology.
Given the narrow majorities in the Senate, Republicans can only afford to lose three GOP senators, and some have yet to say how they will vote. There are some areas in Kennedy’s record that overlap with Democrats, but no Democratic senator has declared they will back him.
Wednesday’s tense hearing in front of the Senate Finance Committee was Kennedy’s first test, and he will face off against the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on Thursday.
For his part, Kennedy tried to downplay his anti-vaccine rhetoric and other controversial stances regarding public health and rebuked statements that he is a vaccine skeptic despite an extensive, recorded history of his linking vaccines to autism in children.
“In my advocacy I have often disturbed the status quo by asking uncomfortable questions. Well, I won’t apologize for that,” Kennedy said. “We have massive health problems in this country that we must face honestly.”
Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado was one of the lawmakers to bring the receipts of Kennedy’s past statements to the hearing.
When asked to respond to his previous statements that Covid-19 was a “genetically engineered bio-weapon that targets Black and white people but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people,” Kennedy responded: “I didn’t say it was deliberately targeted, I just quoted an NIH published study.”
Pressed whether he said that Lyme disease is a “highly likely, militarily engineered bio-weapon” Kennedy said, “I probably did say that.”
Then Bennet turned to his Republican colleagues after Kennedy’s answer: “I want them to hear it.”
Kennedy denied that he said that exposure to pesticide causes children to become transgender, but Bennet pushed back, “I have the record that I’ll give to the chairman.”
Kennedy said he was not sure if he wrote in his book that it is “undeniable that African AIDS is an entirely different disease from Western AIDS.”
After the hearing, Bennet told CNN that Kennedy is peddling “half-truths” and that he doesn’t believe Kennedy’s claims during the hearing that he is no longer anti-vaccine.
“There’s a long record here, and there’s a lot in that record that he’s trying to cover up with the opening statement that you heard and with his claim that he’s quote unquote pro-vax now,” Bennet said.
Sanders asks RFK Jr. about his former org. selling anti-vaccine baby onesies
Kennedy sought to reassure leery conservatives about his stance on abortion, saying he agrees with the president that “states should control abortion.”
“I agree with President Trump that every abortion is a tragedy. I agree with him that we cannot be a moral nation if we have 1.2 million abortions a year. I agree with him that the states should control abortion,” Kennedy said at his confirmation hearing Wednesday, in response to Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma asking if he supports Trump’s previous stance on Title X.
Republican senators and anti-abortion rights advocates have sounded the alarmon Kennedy’s stance on this issue, including his past support for abortion access until fetal viability, and his previous Democratic bid for president. GOP Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, who is anti-abortion rights, told CNN ahead of the hearing that Kennedy needs to do more to assuage her concerns given his past comments supporting access to the procedure.
In the same line of questioning, Kennedy also suggested he would back protections for “conscientious objections” for providers who refuse to provide reproductive health care services they find morally objectionable.
“I don’t know anybody who would want to have a doctor performing a surgery that the doctor is morally opposed to,” he said.
“Forcing somebody to participate in a medical procedure as a provider that they believe is murder does not make any sense to me,” he added.
But Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire attacked Kennedy’s shifting stance on abortion rights.
“It is remarkable that you have such a long record of fighting for women’s reproductive freedom, and really great that my Republican colleagues are so open to voting for a pro-choice HHS Secretary,” Hassan said after citing several quotes of him previously voicing stances supportive of abortion rights.
Kennedy reiterated that he agrees with Trump that “every abortion is a tragedy.”
“When was it that you decided to sell out the values you’ve had your whole life in order to be given power by President Trump?” Hassan asked.
Kennedy refused to give clear answers about whether he would disavow his own financial interests if confirmed or purge HHS employees for political purposes.
Kennedy gave mixed answers when Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts asked him if he would pledge to not take any compensation from lawsuits against drug companies while he is secretary or for four years afterward, as his personal financial stake in some lawsuits has come under scrutiny.
When Warren asked Kennedy to commit to not taking any compensation from any lawsuits during and following his would-be term, Kennedy said, “I will certainly commit to that while I’m secretary. But I do want to clarify something, because you’re making me sound like a shill.”
Kennedy’s financial disclosures, filed as part of his potential role in the incoming administration and during his brief run for the presidency last year, show he has earned more than $2.4 million from litigation brought by Wisner Baum, a law firm whose specialties include pursuing pharmaceutical drug injury cases.
‘No one should be fooled here’: Sen. Warren grills RFK Jr. on making money from vaccine lawsuits
But as Warren’s line of questioning continued, Kennedy’s answers failed to address the senator’s concerns.
“I’m not going to agree to not sue drug companies or anybody,” Kennedy said.
Warren pressed further: “I am asking you to commit right now that you will not take a financial stake in every one of those lawsuits so that what you do as secretary will also benefit you financially down the line.”
To which Kennedy replied, “I’ll comply with all the ethical guidance.”
Warren was not satisfied with his answer.
“No one should be fooled,” Warren responded. “And for all of his talk about ‘follow the science’ and his promise that he won’t interfere with those of us who want to vaccinate our kids. The bottom line is the same. Kennedy can kill off access to vaccines and make millions of dollars while he does it. Kids might die, but Robert Kennedy could keep cashing in.”
The panel’s GOP chairman, Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, said that Kennedy has gone through the Office of Government Ethics process as has every other Cabinet nominee.
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia also pressed Kennedy over what federal employees he plans to fire at the Department of Health and Human Services as concerns have arisen over the purge of federal workers conducted by the Trump administration.
Kennedy has said he wants to fire and replace 600 workers from the National Institutes of Health, and Warner revealed that in their private meeting, Kennedy said he wants to get rid of 2,200 federal employees from HHS.
When asked to pledge to not get rid of employees working on food safety or cyber attacks in health care, Kennedy did not give a yes-or-no answer but said, “I will commit to not firing anybody who’s doing their job.”
Warner then pressed to clarify if those decisions would be based on his opinion, political agenda, or President Donald Trump’s wishes.
“Based on my opinion,” Kennedy responded.
Kennedy also would not commit to not freezing grant funding for community health centers, as the fallout from the Trump administration’s federal aid freeze remains unclear, and instead said, “The White House has made clear that no funds are going to be denied to any American for benefits in any program.”
Where Democrats and Kennedy found common ground
Notably, Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who went to the University of Virginia School of Law with Kennedy, used his dedicated time in the spotlight to give a speech rather than ask Kennedy questions.
Despite the overall tense hearing, which included interruptions from protesters, Democrats signaled they found some common ground when Kennedy outlined his views on the chronic disease epidemic and how he wants to implement a nutrition-oriented disease prevention plan.
Even Bennet, who interrogated Kennedy, also conceded “Mr. Kennedy is right” when it comes to the declining health in the United States and poor food quality offered to children.
No Democrats have said that they will support Kennedy, but some have suggested they are open to it.
“I’ve met with him and that’s part of an ongoing dialogue,” Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania told CNN when asked if he might support Kennedy.
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has said that Kennedy is “exactly correct” about the food industry.
Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, told CNN he doesn’t think any of his Democratic colleagues on the panel will back Kennedy after his hearing on Wednesday.
“I can’t see it. I think that he was so untrustworthy and unprepared,” he told CNN’s Manu Raju when asked if he thinks any Democrats will vote to advance Kennedy’s nomination to a full floor vote.
“I don’t believe any Democrats on the committee will support him, and I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that we have the opportunity to get to ask additional questions and get to the bottom of some the many areas he ducked and found ways to get around,” he continued.
RFK Jr. has found himself in hot water once again, this time for his controversial comments about vaccines and abortion rights. The prominent environmental activist and vaccine skeptic recently clashed with Democrats over his past statements, sparking outrage among party members.In a recent interview, RFK Jr. criticized the mainstream Democratic stance on vaccine mandates, calling them “anti-democratic” and arguing that they infringe on individual rights. He also drew backlash for his comments about abortion rights, suggesting that the pro-choice movement has become too extreme.
These remarks have caused a rift between RFK Jr. and many Democrats, who see his views as dangerous and irresponsible. Some have even called for him to be removed from his position within the party, citing his history of spreading misinformation about vaccines and other health issues.
Despite the backlash, RFK Jr. has stood by his comments, insisting that he is simply advocating for individual freedom and personal choice. However, his words have reignited the debate over vaccines and abortion rights within the Democratic Party, highlighting the ongoing tensions between different factions within the party.
Tags:
- RFK Jr.
- Democrats
- Vaccines
- Abortion rights
- Political controversy
- RFK Jr. comments
- Vaccine debate
- Democratic party conflict
- RFK Jr. controversy
- Public health debate
#RFK #clashes #Democrats #comments #vaccines #abortion #rights
Democrats Push for D.C. Statehood, a Gambit More About Politics Than Representation
Senator Van Hollen of Maryland is renewing the push for statehood for the Columbia District. He’s co-sponsoring, with 40 of his fellow Democrats, a bill to grant statehood to the district. Yet even if it passes, it faces obstacles in the Constitution. A more open road could be retrocession of residential areas to Maryland.
“Every American should have a full vote in our country’s future,” Mr. Van Hollen writes in a statement announcing his bill and the House version earlier this month, “but we fall short of this promise every day that the residents of the District of Columbia are denied that right in Congress.”
Mr. Van Hollen invoked the Revolutionary War slogan, “No taxation without representation.” In 1820’s Loughborough vs. Blake, though, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that it was the duty of citizens to pay taxes. “Representation,” he wrote of the District, “is not made the foundation of taxation.”
Outside the Beltway, support for D.C. statehood has always been sparse. Only 16 states ratified the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment of 1978 before it expired. It would have repealed the 23rd Amendment, which gave the District Electoral College votes.
That bill had bipartisan backing in Congress. Maryland and Virginia, which opposed the creation of a powerful new entity next-door, objected. Today, Democrats outnumber Republicans two-to-one in the District, sinking the chances of gaining GOP support.
Nevertheless, District residents pine for representatives in Congress. They’ve voted for president since 1964, following ratification of the 23rd Amendment. They’ve elected mayors and city councils since 1974 but only send a non-voting delegate to Capitol Hill. Congress has final say over laws and budgets.
The District’s unique governance is by design. To avoid giving to any one state outsized influence over the federal government, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” in its capital city.
The arrangement, as President Madison writes in 43 Federalist, wasn’t meant to disenfranchise. Instead, he felt proximity to what Washington called “the Federal City” would ensure lawmakers addressed locals’ concerns.
The states “ceding” territory, Madison wrote, would “no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it … as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them.”
The Constitution mandates a capital created “by cession of particular states” and in 1790, Congress empowered President Washington to select its location. He claimed territory of Virginia and Maryland, which became the seat of the federal government in 1801.
Article I stated that the capital would be an area “not exceeding ten miles square,” and Washington chose swampland with few residents. Over time, the population grew, boosted before the Civil War when Congress outlawed slavery and Black Americans fled there for freedom.
The District is now home to almost 680,000 residents, more than Vermont and Wyoming. The Admissions Clause of the Constitution forbids the creation of new states from regions of another without its ascent. Maryland’s legislature would likely have to agree to a muddled transfer of ownership.
Glancing at a map of the Columbia District today illuminates a possible solution. The capital city is no longer the complete square Washington sketched because, in 1846, Congress returned Virginia’s portion. This retrocession gave residents the full representation that Mr. Van Hollan’s bill advocates.
But even the constitutionality of that retrocession has been questioned. The Contract Clause forbids states to breach deals, and Virginia agreed to “forever cede and relinquish” territory. Yet it’s a precedent: Returning residential areas and shrinking the District again to areas that conduct federal business.
“Retrocession to Maryland makes a lot of sense,” Congressman Thomas Davis of Virginia said in a 1998 interview with the Washington Post, “except that Maryland doesn’t want” it. He said that the then-attorney general, a Democrat, further held that “an amendment is the only way for Maryland to take it back.”
Despite the uphill climb, Democrats are chasing the dream of gaining two safe Senate seats. That there are no GOP co-sponsors of Mr. Van Hollan’s bill indicates that, in addition to the constitutional obstacles, his bill would serve political goals rather than enfranchise citizens in the District.
Mr. Van Hollen, in his statement, notes that he timed his bill “at the beginning of two years under a Republican-held Congress and presidency.” He recognized “a challenge in the short term” to make it law, indicating that the most likely outcome is feeding a perennial campaign issue.
Another tell that politics is at play is that a common objection on the left — that the Senate is undemocratic because the “Great Compromise” gives large and small states equal representation in the upper chamber — isn’t invoked when it comes to adding the star of tiny D.C. to the flag.
“No Taxation Without Representation,” the motto on District license plates, will prove a powerful political slogan for Democrats, but the Constitution requires a federal district.
In recent news, Democrats have been pushing for Washington, D.C. to become the 51st state in the United States. While this may seem like a move towards fair representation for the residents of the nation’s capital, many critics argue that this push is more about politics than true representation.The debate over D.C. statehood has been ongoing for years, with proponents arguing that the 700,000 residents of the district deserve full voting rights and representation in Congress. Currently, D.C. residents are only represented by a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives and have no representation in the Senate.
However, opponents of D.C. statehood argue that the push is simply a political move by Democrats to gain two more Senate seats, as D.C. is heavily Democratic-leaning. They argue that the issue is not about fair representation, but rather about gaining a political advantage.
The push for D.C. statehood has also raised concerns about the constitutional implications of making the district a state, as the Constitution specifies that the seat of government should be a separate entity from any state. Critics argue that making D.C. a state would go against the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
While the debate over D.C. statehood is far from over, it is clear that the issue is more about politics than fair representation for the residents of the district. Only time will tell if D.C. will become the 51st state, or if this push will be seen as just another political gambit.
Tags:
- Democrats
- D.C. statehood
- Politics
- Representation
- Democratic Party
- U.S. politics
- Statehood push
- Washington D.C.
- Political strategy
- Congressional debate
#Democrats #Push #D.C #Statehood #Gambit #Politics #Representation
Democrats blame Trump for soaring egg prices — just like Trump blamed Biden. Can anyone actually fix the problem?
Most Americans know that eggs are both incredible and edible.
But now they’re political too.
As the average price of a dozen large, grade-A eggs continues to soar amid a raging bird-flu outbreak — hitting $4.13 in December 2024, up nearly 37% from a year earlier — Democrats in Congress are accusing newly inaugurated President Trump of backtracking on one of the key promises of his 2024 campaign: to “end inflation and make America affordable again,” “starting on day one.”
Trusted news and daily delights, right in your inbox
See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories.
“I won on groceries,” Trump told NBC last month. “When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they would double and triple the price over a short period of time, and I won an election based on that. We’re going to bring those prices way down.”
Yet according to a group of congressional Democrats led by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Trump has spent his first week back in office too focused on other priorities instead, such as “mass deportations and pardoning Jan. 6 attackers.”
“Your sole action on costs was an executive order that contained only the barest mention of food prices and not a single specific policy to reduce them,” Warren and 19 other Democratic lawmakers wrote Sunday in a letter to the president. “Americans are looking to you to lower food prices.”
In response, White House press secretary Karolin Leavitt continued to blame former President Joe Biden Tuesday, saying that “we have seen the cost of everything — not just eggs; bacon, groceries, gasoline — [increase] because of the inflationary policies of the last administration.”
Why are eggs suddenly the hot topic in Washington, D.C.? And what — if anything — can be done to make them cheaper? Here’s everything you need to know about the Great Egg Debate of 2025.
Trump pins egg prices on the Biden administration
Expensive eggs aren’t a new problem. Their average price hasn’t been below $3 per dozen since June — and it hasn’t been below $2 since the start of 2022. That’s when the current avian influenza outbreak started (which led to the death of more than 20 million egg-laying chickens in the U.S. during the last quarter of 2024 alone). Fewer chickens means fewer eggs, and fewer eggs means pricier eggs — especially as demand rises over the holiday season (all that baking) and in the lead-up to Easter (all that painting). Other factors — lingering COVID-era inflation, supply-chain issues, cage-free requirements and panic buying — have contributed as well.
All in all, the Department of Agriculture now estimates that egg prices will increase by another 20% or so in 2025, compared with about 2.2% for food prices in general.
For Trump’s 2024 campaign, eggs were the gift that kept on giving: an everyday grocery-store staple that was about three times more expensive on Election Day than it had been when Trump left office four years earlier — making it easy fodder for attacks on his Democratic rival, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
“Let’s talk about eggs,” Trump’s running mate JD Vance said at a September grocery store event in Reading, Pa. “Eggs, when Kamala Harris took office, were short of $1.50 a dozen. Now a dozen eggs will cost you around $4. … Looking at the prices here, things are way too expensive and they’re way too expensive because of Kamala Harris’s policies.”
Never mind that the eggs displayed behind Vance actually cost $2.99 per dozen; the broader message connected with swing voters.
“I hope that people can get over their own feelings about tweets and things [Trump] says and look at the bigger picture with where our economy is now,” one told a New York Times focus group. “When eggs are $6 for a dozen, how many feelings do you really need to have?”
“It used to be $1, or even 99 cents,” Samuel Negron, a Pennsylvania state constable, added in a BBC interview. “A lot of us have woken up, in my opinion, from Democratic lies that things have been better. We realized things were better then.”
Ultimately, about nine in 10 voters said they were very or somewhat concerned about the cost of groceries, according to Associated Press exit polling.
“Grocery prices have skyrocketed,” Trump said at an August press conference. “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down.”
Prices keep rising under Trump
But the problem for Trump is that egg prices did not plummet “immediately” upon his return to the Oval Office. In fact, they have shot up to a record high of more than $7 per dozen since the start of 2025 — and now Democrats are blaming him for the hike, just like he blamed Harris and Biden.
In truth, no president can magically lower the price of eggs with the stroke of a pen. But Warren & Co. are arguing that Trump can do more to combat the bird-flu outbreak and help eventually ease prices by “encouraging competition and fighting price gouging at each level of the food supply chain.”
Not helping matters, they say, is the fact that the Trump administration has now “canceled a string of scientific meetings and instructed federal health officials to refrain from all public communications, including upcoming reports focused on the nation’s escalating bird flu crisis,” according to the New York Times.
When asked about egg prices Tuesday, Leavitt, the White House press secretary, implied that the standard biosecurity protocol of culling an entire flock after one chicken tests positive for bird flu was somehow inappropriate and might not continue in the future.
“The Biden administration and the Department of Agriculture directed the mass killing of more than 100 million chickens, which has led to a lack of chicken supply in this country,” Leavitt said. “This is an example of why it’s so incredibly important that the Senate moves swiftly to confirm all of President Trump’s nominees, including his nominee for the United States Department of Agriculture.”
What’s next?
Elsewhere, the administration has pointed to Trump’s day-one executive order asking the “heads of all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief, consistent with applicable law, to the American people and increase the prosperity of the American worker.” Trump and Vance have also insisted that their plan to increase domestic energy production will eventually lower food prices.
“Rome wasn’t built in a day,” Vance told CBS News on Sunday. “How does bacon get to the grocery store? It comes on trucks that are fueled by diesel fuel. If the diesel is way too expensive, the bacon is going to become more expensive. How do we grow the bacon? Our farmers need energy to produce it. So if we lower energy prices, we are going to see lower prices for consumers, and that is what we’re trying to fight for.”
“I think that energy is going to bring [prices] down,” Trump told Time magazine last month. “I think a better supply chain is going to bring them down.”
Yet when Time asked Trump if his second term would be “a failure” absent falling grocery prices, Trump said no.
“I’d like to bring them down,” he added, but “it’s hard to bring things down once they’re up. You know, it’s very hard.”
In a recent turn of events, Democrats have been quick to blame former President Donald Trump for the soaring prices of eggs, just like Trump previously blamed President Joe Biden for various issues. But the question remains: can anyone actually fix the problem?The price of eggs has been steadily increasing in recent months, causing concern among consumers and politicians alike. Democrats have pointed to Trump’s policies and trade wars as contributing factors to the rising costs, while Trump himself has argued that Biden’s administration has mishandled the economy, leading to inflation and higher prices across the board.
But the reality is that the issue of soaring egg prices is a complex one that cannot be easily attributed to any single individual or policy. Factors such as supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, and increased demand from consumers all play a role in driving up prices.
So, can anyone actually fix the problem? The truth is, there is no easy solution. It will likely require a combination of government intervention, market forces, and consumer behavior to address the issue and bring prices back down to a more reasonable level.
In the meantime, consumers may have to adjust their shopping habits and be prepared to pay a little more for their eggs. And politicians on both sides of the aisle will need to work together to find long-term solutions to prevent similar price spikes in the future. Only time will tell if the soaring egg prices can be effectively addressed and if anyone can truly fix the problem.
Tags:
- Democrats
- Trump
- Egg prices
- Biden
- Political blame game
- Rising food costs
- Government policies
- Economic impact
- Solutions to high egg prices
- Bipartisan cooperation
#Democrats #blame #Trump #soaring #egg #prices #Trump #blamed #Biden #fix #problem
These Democrats were friends with RFK Jr., on Wednesday they’ll be adversaries
In 1998, when Whitehouse was an underdog candidate for attorney general of Rhode Island, Kennedy was there to campaign with him. “Sheldon is known all over the country for his commitment” to the environment, said Kennedy at a Whitehouse campaign event in 1998 on Narragansett Bay in Cranston, according to the Journal-Bulletin.
When Whitehouse ran for US Senate in 2006, Kennedy went to work fund-raising, describing him in a letter to donors as “a close personal friend and someone who I believe is going to make a terrific Democratic senator from Rhode Island.”
Senator Peter Welch of Vermont, who also serves on the finance panel, also counted Kennedy as an important early political ally. When Welch ran for US House in 2006, Kennedy came to Burlington to stump for him. “This Vermont election is a critical election so we can start taking back the America we love,” Kennedy said, according to the Burlington Free Press.
Other senators came to know and admire Kennedy through his famed advocacy and legal work for clean water, including Senator Ed Markey, of Malden, who serves on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which will question Kennedy on Thursday.
As a House member in 2008, Markey called Kennedy as a witness for a hearing he convened in a then-operational special committee on climate change. Introducing Kennedy as “one of our nation’s foremost champions for clean water and clean air,” Markey praised him as “a tireless advocate, a prolific author, and a living environmental legend.”
Much has changed in the years since these senators campaigned with and gushed about Kennedy — particularly within the past year, when he left the Democratic Party and became an independent during his quixotic presidential campaign. He later dropped out of the race entirely and endorsed Trump. But even before that, when his activism became defined by antivaccine stances during the Obama years, Kennedy found himself increasingly isolated in Democratic circles; his full-on embrace of COVID conspiracies, along with a number of other fringe beliefs, ahead of his 2024 presidential bid made him an outright pariah.
The deterioration of Kennedy’s relationships with key Democratic lawmakers, however, is a different lens through which to view the well-known story of his flight from liberal royalty to MAGA superstar.
Welch, in a statement to the Globe, noted he met privately with Kennedy last week to discuss his nomination. “The RFK Jr. of 2006 was the Riverkeeper’s RFK Jr.,” said Welch, invoking the name of Kennedy’s environmental advocacy organization. “And it’s clear after meeting with him last week that much has changed since then.”
In response to an inquiry, a Markey spokesperson referred the Globe to the senator’s comments from December explaining his opposition to Kennedy’s nomination.
Spokespeople for Whitehouse and Kennedy did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
“I don’t think it’s going to be a difficult decision for Democrats who had political relationships, even friendships with him,” said Barbara Perry, a professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center who has written several books about the Kennedy family. It may not be complicated for these Democrats, she added, because their relationships with Kennedy are “so broken.”
When they encounter Kennedy under the bright lights of his confirmation hearings, these once friendly Democrats are poised to ask him difficult questions about a range of his controversial beliefs and their implications for his leadership of the nation’s crucial health agencies. The Republicans who once viewed Kennedy as a radical liberal crusader, meanwhile, have been replaced with successors keen to follow Trump’s lead.
Most Democratic senators have either ruled out supporting Kennedy or are at least deeply skeptical of him. Markey, for instance, quickly declared he would oppose the nomination, as did Senator Elizabeth Warren. Whitehouse and Welch have not yet publicly said how they will vote; both have been comparatively more muted in their criticism of Kennedy than many of their colleagues.
In December, Welch told the Globe that he was troubled by Kennedy’s views on vaccines but spoke positively of his longtime criticism of big food and agriculture conglomerates and the need for healthier food.
Meanwhile, Whitehouse’s only public statement regarding Kennedy on the platform X was a sarcastic take on a news report from December that a top Kennedy adviser once petitioned the federal government to revoke approval for the polio vaccine.
“Because more polio is definitely what we need,” Whitehouse deadpanned.
On Friday, Whitehouse declined to say how he would vote on Kennedy’s nomination when asked by a Politico reporter. (Still, Whitehouse said in 2023 on ABC that he and Kennedy were no longer close.)
The Kennedy beloved by many Democrats for years was not just the “torch-bearer” of his father and uncles’ legacy, said Perry, but a dedicated activist in his own right. Famously, Kennedy found his passion in environmental law and advocacy after volunteering for clean water groups to satisfy his probation for a drug possession arrest. At his organization, Riverkeeper, Kennedy won court battles to improve water quality and counter polluters on the Hudson River and Long Island Sound.
Through this work, Kennedy crossed paths with many future Democratic lawmakers — some of whom will vote on his nomination soon. When he was attorney general of Connecticut, in the 1980s, Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, joined Kennedy’s sister group, the Long Island Soundkeeper, in a lawsuit accusing New York state of polluting the water of the sound it shares with Connecticut. They eventually won the case.
In 2009, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, gave a floor speech on Earth Day in which she praised Kennedy and his “extraordinary leadership” on environmental advocacy.
“Bobby Kennedy recognized early on that state and federal environmental legislation cannot only be positive for air, land, and water, but also good for the economy and job creation,” she said, citing their conversations and visit to a school together to tout environmental programs.
A week after that speech, Kennedy issued a critical endorsement of Gillibrand, who was then contending with several possible Democratic challengers who hoped to unseat her from the office to which she had been appointed. “Kirsten has always been an environmental champion,” Kennedy emailed supporters, according to Politico. “If we’re going to finally get serious about climate change and about rebuilding this country, we need Kirsten to keep her spot on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.” (Gillibrand ultimately warded off primary rivals and won election easily in 2010.)
Gillibrand’s office did not respond to a request for comment; the senator herself said in December there are a “great deal of issues” she and Kennedy could find “common ground” on if he were confirmed.
Kennedy would trade on his goodwill until his increased propagation of conspiracies began to alienate him from Democratic power centers. In a 2014 story, The Washington Post detailed Kennedy’s considerable ability to easily secure meetings with lawmakers — and the distant reception he got when it became clear he wanted to raise the alarm over his theory that vaccines caused autism. One of those lawmakers was Vermont independent Senator Bernie Sanders, whom the Post described as “polite but noncommittal” regarding Kennedy’s insistence he had science to back up his case.
Still, as recently as 2018, Kennedy was still professing admiration for his longtime allies. Ahead of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Kennedy told Framingham’s MetroWest News that the two politicians that most share his father’s values were Markey and Whitehouse.
“I don’t know if any of those people have national ambitions,” he said. “I think we have to see what emerges.”
Sam Brodey can be reached at sam.brodey@globe.com. Follow him @sambrodey.
As the political landscape continues to shift and evolve, it is not uncommon to see former friends and allies become opponents. This Wednesday, a group of Democrats who were once close with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will find themselves on opposite sides of the aisle as they face off in a heated debate.The relationship between these individuals and RFK Jr. dates back to their early days in politics, when they worked together to advance progressive causes and fight for social justice. However, as time has passed and their views have diverged, they now find themselves at odds over key issues such as healthcare, climate change, and gun control.
Despite their differences, these Democrats still hold a deep respect for each other and the work they have done together in the past. While they may be adversaries in the political arena, they remain friends at heart and are committed to finding common ground where they can.
As they prepare to square off in the upcoming debate, these former allies turned opponents are sure to bring their A-game and make their case to the American people. It will be a battle of ideas, principles, and passion as they strive to prove who is the best candidate to lead their party and the country forward.
Stay tuned for what is sure to be a riveting and intense showdown between these Democrats who were once friends with RFK Jr., now turned adversaries.
Tags:
RFK Jr., Democrats, political rivals, friendship, political opponents, Wednesday showdown, political relationships, Kennedy family, Democratic party, political history, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., political alliances, political dynamics, political differences, political conflicts.
#Democrats #friends #RFK #Wednesday #theyll #adversariesTrump fires NLRB Democrats Wilcox and Abruzzo : NPR
Jennifer Abruzzo, general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board under former President Joe Biden, was fired on Monday by President Trump.
Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/Associated Press
hide captiontoggle caption
Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/Associated Press
It wasn’t a surprise when President Trump fired National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo late Monday. She was a Biden appointee who had used the agency to expand workers’ rights.
But Trump went further, also firing Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in an unprecedented move that will be met with a legal fight.
Due to existing vacancies, Wilcox’s ouster leaves the board with just two members, short of the quorum it needs to adjudicate even routine cases. (The board, when fully staffed, has five members.)
While courts have upheld the president’s authority to remove the NLRB’s general counsel, the National Labor Relations Act states that board members can be removed “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.”
In a statement, Wilcox called her firing illegal.
“I will be pursuing all legal avenues to challenge my removal, which violates long-standing Supreme Court precedent,” she wrote.
A 1935 Supreme Court case known as Humphrey’s Executor established limits on the president’s power to remove officials who perform quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, as NLRB board members do.
Since their appointments in 2021, Wilcox and Abruzzo have taken broad views of the protections labor law offers workers.
Wilcox, a former union lawyer, wrote that as the first Black woman to serve on the labor board, “I brought a unique perspective that I believe will be lost.”
As the agency’s prosecutor, Abruzzo worked to remove barriers to organizing, most recently winning a board ruling outlawing “captive audience” meetings, or mandatory meetings at which employers try to dissuade workers from unionizing.
Her approach toward protecting workers’ rights and holding employers accountable has raised the ire of many in the corporate world. The NLRB faces more than two dozen lawsuits brought by companies, including SpaceX and Amazon, who say the agency’s structure gives it unchecked power to shape and enforce labor law. Space X was founded by Trump adviser and billionaire Elon Musk.
In his first term, Trump’s general counsel at the labor agency was Peter Robb, a management-side labor attorney who served as lead counsel for President Ronald Reagan during the air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981.
Last week, Trump named Marvin Kaplan, the sole Republican board member on the NLRB, as chair. It’s unclear when – or even if – Trump will fill the three vacant seats.
The ouster of Wilcox and Abruzzo came just hours after workers at a Whole Foods Market in Philadelphia voted 130 to 100 to join the United Food & Commercial Workers union. The grocery chain is owned by Amazon, which is already mired in legal fights over efforts to unionize workers at its warehouses.
In a statement, Abruzzo highlighted work the NLRB accomplished under Biden, empowering workers to seek better wages, benefits and working conditions.
“There’s no putting that genie back in the bottle,” Abruzzo wrote. “So, if the Agency does not fully effectuate its Congressional mandate in the future as we did during my tenure, I expect that workers with assistance from their advocates will take matters into their own hands in order to get well-deserved dignity and respect in the workplace.”
In a shocking move, President Trump has fired National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Democrats Mark Wilcox and Lauren McFerran Abruzzo, leaving the board with a Republican majority. The decision has sparked controversy and raised concerns about the future of labor rights in the United States. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story. #NLRB #Trump #LaborRights
Tags:
- Trump administration
- NLRB Democrats
- firing
- Wilcox
- Abruzzo
- National Public Radio
- political news
- government officials
- labor relations
- employment law
#Trump #fires #NLRB #Democrats #Wilcox #Abruzzo #NPR
Maine Democrats choose new party leaders
AUGUSTA – Maine Democrats chose new leaders on Sunday, electing attorney Charlie Dingman as chairman and Imke Schlesser-Jandreau as vice chair.
The new leaders, chosen by the Maine Democratic State Committee, will replace outgoing chairwoman Bev Uhlenhake and vice-chair Julian Rogers, who announced earlier this month that they were both stepping down.
The new leaders take over at a critical time in Maine politics, with an open seat for governor in 2026 as well as a U.S. Senate contest in which Republican Sen. Susan Collins has indicated she plans to run for a sixth term.
In a statement, Dingman, of Leeds, said Maine Democrats are wary of potential changes from the Trump administration.
“This is a challenging moment for all of us in the party of Maine’s working people, as our new national regime serves the interests of the very few who are wealthy enough not to do their own work and pursues its agenda without a care for those most vulnerable to their cruelty,” he said.
Democrats did well at the state level last November, maintaining control of the Maine House and Senate as well as the hotly contested 2nd Congressional District.
Yet Republicans gained ground, coming within 100 votes of taking control of the Maine House.
Schlesser-Jandreau, of Bangor, said in a statement that she’s looking forward to working in all communities in Maine.
“We have an incredible opportunity to rebrand the party, lean into our values, and bring people together,” she said. “By listening to Mainers who have felt unheard for too long we will build strong grassroots campaigns that unite all corners of the state.”
Earlier this month, Maine Republicans changed party leadership as well, selecting Jim Deyermond as chairman and Scott Rocknak as vice-chair.
Maine Democrats have recently selected new party leaders in an effort to revitalize and strengthen the party’s presence in the state. After a competitive election process, the following individuals have been chosen to lead the Maine Democratic Party:1. Chair: Kathleen Marra
2. Vice Chair: Jamal Bartley
3. Secretary: Erin Herbig
4. Treasurer: Jamie MelansonThese newly elected leaders bring a wealth of experience, passion, and dedication to the party. They are committed to advancing progressive values, promoting inclusivity, and building a strong grassroots movement in Maine.
Under their leadership, the Maine Democratic Party aims to engage with voters across the state, recruit and support diverse candidates, and work towards achieving meaningful change for all Mainers.
We look forward to seeing the positive impact that these new leaders will have on the party and the state as a whole. Congratulations to Kathleen Marra, Jamal Bartley, Erin Herbig, and Jamie Melanson on their new roles!
Tags:
Maine Democrats, party leaders, leadership change, Democratic Party, Maine politics, political news, Maine elections, Democratic Party leaders, Maine Democratic Party, Maine political updates
#Maine #Democrats #choose #party #leaders
