Latest in Politics
Digital footprints are affecting this new generation of politicians, but do voters care?
Political scandals are not new. Digital footprints are. How are political candidates adapting?
read moreWatch: US Veteran helps lead DC protest against the Trump administration
WASHINGTON — Rig Madden, an Army Veteran who retired as a master sergeant in 2016, is one of five founders of Remember Your Oath, a group that protests the Trump administration’s military and domestic policies both in person and online.
“I warned for years that if you let someone as corrupt as Trump back in office, you will have to make a choice,” Madden said. “You can either choose him or democracy; you don’t get to keep both.”
Madden was deployed overseas five times. To Cuba in 1995, Bosnia in 1996, Kosovo in 1999, Iraq in 2008, and Afghanistan in 2013. He now shares his over 20 years of military experience online as an activist and has amassed over 170 thousand followers on Instagram under the handle @USArmyOverlord.
On August 25, the group responded to President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard by establishing a veterans’ rally point in Columbus Circle outside Union Station. It is here that they set up a hub for community outreach and protest activity.
“I’m not really here to debate Confederate lovers,” Madden said. “I’m here to defeat them, and so I defeat them by rallying to our people, and rallying to people who still want to fight for democracy and gather them together.”
After over one hundred days of resistance at the Veterans’ Rally Point, their tents were forcibly removed on December 10. Madden says they are still unwavering in their efforts.
Watch the video report here:
Democrats respond to Trump’s disparaging remarks about Somali immigrants
WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress condemned President Donald Trump’s statements about the Somali population in Minnesota last week, claiming Trump is stoking bigotry through xenophobic comments.
Reflecting on fraud convictions in Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic, the president blamed Somali immigrants in a Cabinet meeting last Tuesday, commenting that they had “destroyed Minnesota.” He also referred to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) — a Somali American representing Minneapolis — as “garbage” and labeled the state of Minnesota “a hellhole right now.”
“The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain,” he said.
Trump’s comments drew swift backlash from Somali Americans and prompted criticism from Democrats.
Aligning with the president’s tough-on-crime approach toward blue states, Trump voiced concern over fraud convictions in Minnesota. The state experienced a wave of fraud during the COVID-19 pandemic, primarily centered on the charitable organization Feeding Our Future but also included Housing Stabilization Services and autism programs. Among those charged with fraud in the Feeding Our Future case, most are of Somali descent, while the group’s founder, Aimee Bock, is white.
Omar told Medill News Service that xenophobic comments like those directed by Trump against her imply potential danger.
“When you use dehumanizing language like that, there is always the risk that the people who follow the president will act to harm either me or the Somali person that they might encounter. And so it’s really dangerous rhetoric for him to continue to utilize,” she said.
Countering Trump’s claims that Somali immigrants are harming the state, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said the work of Somali Americans is embedded in the Minnesota community.
“The 80,000 Somali-Americans in our state work in our schools, care for our seniors, and serve our community…the President has now chosen to attack 80,000 Somali-Americans, calling them ‘garbage.’ These hateful attacks must stop,” Klobuchar said in a statement last week.
It is not out of character for Trump to make denigrating remarks about an immigrant group. After the shooting of two National Guard troops in late November, Trump said there were “a lot of problems with Afghans.” He also said during his reelection campaign that nearly 100% of jobs created during the Biden administration were filled by “illegal aliens,” a claim widely debunked by the press.
“Many of these people are criminals,” he said of Somali Minnesotans. He also posted on Truth Social that night that he would “permanently” stop migration from “third world” nations.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told Medill News Service that Trump’s words should be met with political consequences.
“Trump has shown himself to be incapable of apology, and so the best way that we can do [consequences] is by continuing the rejection of the broader Republican Party,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez also called out what she described as the Republican Party’s “co-signing” of Trump’s language.
Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) expressed worry about how these comments will impact the safety of Somali Americans in her state. She said the community has faced threats in recent days.
“My message to Minnesotans of Somali dissent is: be careful. Don’t hesitate to call 911, if you need help,” she told Medill News Service.
A Cinnabon employee was fired in Wisconsin last week for making derogatory comments about Somali customers, which were captured on a viral video and picked up by numerous news outlets. She called the customers “evil” and used the N-word repeatedly. In response to her firing, a GoFundMe was started after angry supporters objected to her termination. Her campaign has raised nearly $300,000.
A comment on her fund page posted Wednesday morning read, “Crystal, I am so proud of you for being a proud White Woman. You did nothing wrong.”
Republican senators such as Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said they do not accept Democrats’ claims that the president is xenophobic. When asked about whether the president is a xenophobe, Hawley said “no” but declined to elaborate.
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) told reporters he was worried about crime in Minnesota, condemning “fraud, fraud and more fraud.” He specifically blamed Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the fraud, and did not mention the state’s Somali residents.
“It seems like every day there is a new discovery of stolen taxpayer dollars in my home state of Minnesota, and who is smack dab in the middle of it, the self-acknowledged liar, incompetent, failed governor and failed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz,” Emmer said.
Smith said that the backlash to Trump’s comments was accompanied by appreciation for Minnesota as a state that protects immigrants.
“Folks are surrounding and appreciating the Somali community for the many contributions that it makes to our state, whether they are people serving in law enforcement or emergency response or teachers or doctors or nurses,” Smith told Medill News Service.
Representative Sarah McBride (D-Del.), who has often been the target of negative rhetoric due to being trans, said Trump’s remarks are fueled by hatred.
“Donald Trump seems to hate a lot of Americans,” she told Medill News Service. “I think the president should be a unifying figure who respects and values every single American, regardless of who they are or where they come from.
McBride said that her colleagues are united in objecting to the president’s remarks about Somali immigrants. She also said that members of the GOP may also oppose the president’s targeted comments about ethnic groups.
“I think a lot of Republicans understand that too in Congress, but they’re too chicken shit to actually say something,” she added.
Omar said that f being targeted by Trump has strengthened her admiration for her Somali community.
Commenting on the values of fellow Somali Americans, Omar said the community would remain strong.
“I’m proud of them as much as they’re proud of me. We are a very strong, brave, resilient people, and we will continue to stand tall,” she said.
Latest in Education
Watch: As anti-transgender bathroom policies fall flat in Va. election, challenges remain for LGBTQ students
Republicans ran on controversial bathroom and locker room policies during Virginia’s gubernatorial election, but voters prioritized affordability issues.
read moreSenators debate need for transparency in higher education costs
WASHINGTON – Senators clashed over the federal government’s role in helping families plan and pay for higher education, a process lawmakers have deemed “opaque,” at a Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing Thursday.
The discussion centered on the inability for families to easily compare the costs of different higher education opportunities. While Republican committee members focused on a lack of transparency, Democrats said improving transparency doesn’t go far enough if the cost of education is still out of reach for families.
“The reality is that college just costs too much,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said. “Students today are struggling to meet their basic needs [and] everyday expenses.”
But Republicans argued that addressing affordability with increasing federal subsidies on higher education would only raise inflation.
“I think this is particularly true with colleges,” Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) said. “The more you give, the more the beast feeds. It just keeps driving up prices.”
Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said families can choose cheaper education alternatives rather than receiving more money from the federal government.
“I was that student who had the choice between going to university, but I chose to go to community college,” he said. “I was a varsity athlete working three jobs.”
Witnesses at the hearing largely agreed that students and their families do not have sufficient and consistent information about costs of attending college which would make it easier to compare choices before matriculating.
Senators also discussed the College Transparency Act, a bill garnering bipartisan support that would establish a secure student-level database for colleges to report “cost, enrollment, retention, completion, and post-college earnings” for families as they consider postsecondary educational plans, according to the bill’s sponsor Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.).
Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said at the hearing students should not have to “jump through hoops” to understand how much college will cost them, pointing to business models in other industries.
“When I buy a plane ticket, for instance, I can see all of my options up front. Students can’t do the same with college,” he said.
Cooper criticized “confusing, outdated and wildly inaccurate” net price calculators, which colleges and universities offer so that families can anticipate the average cost of attendance based on their income and other assets.
“Some require students to report pages upon pages of financial data,” he said. “Others only estimate price ranges that can vary by $20,000 or more.”
Cooper instead suggested net price calculators should be binding, and that colleges should provide four-year price locks.
‘It’s turning back time’: parents, experts fear special education layoffs threaten civil rights protections
WASHINGTON – Meredith Peterson is the parent of a 17-year-old with Down syndrome. The Pennsylvania mother said the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is crucial in protecting her access to resources and funding as she navigated raising her child.
Peterson says she relied on OSERS resources “to really understand and learn about education law, learn about procedural safeguards, the protections, and… to make sure that my child has what she needs and is thriving.”
Peterson is intimately familiar with OSERS operations. She is the Executive Director at PEAL, the Pennsylvania Parent Training and Information Center. The organization is mandated by IDEA, the law that provides funding and accommodations for 7.5 million kids with disabilities. It is overseen by OSERS.
But now, she says, those essential oversight and funding services are at risk.
The U.S. Department of Education eliminated 121 OSERS staff members and 137 people in the Office for Civil Rights in October, after the start of the government shutdown. In September 2024, the last time the federal government published agency employment numbers, OSERS had 179 staff members and the Office for Civil Rights had 568.
While all federal layoffs initiated during the government shutdown are temporarily paused by a federal judge, parents and experts say they fear that money and civil rights protections overseen by OSERS and the Office of Civil Rights could be lost.
“I feel like it’s turning back time,” Peterson said.
Dr. Shameka Stewart works with children with special education needs within the justice system. She said that with reduced staff, OSERS could become overloaded with requests for funding and parent complaints, leading to delays in enforcement.
“The youth are going to get the blunt [end] of all of this impact, because then, they’re not getting quality services – they’re not getting services at all,” Dr. Stewart said. “There’s going to be a risk to the compliance around [it] if the child is actually getting what they need to be successful in education, which is a civil rights violation.”
Peterson says she worries the lack of OSERS staff will leave parents like her without recourse if schools violate IDEA protections.
“Who is that oversight, and how does that family get the resolution when perhaps there is an inconsistency, or an unfairness, or discrimination that’s happening,” she asked. “Where does the family go?”
In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the government shutdown has forced agencies like hers to reevaluate what services are “truly critical” for Americans.
“No education funding is impacted by the RIF, including funding for special education,” McMahon wrote on October 15. “Two weeks in, millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid, and schools are operating as normal. It confirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary, and we should return education to the states,” she added.
However, educators argue returning oversight of education to the states could further threaten protections for special education students.
Dr. Tinita Kearney is a speech-language pathologist in Maryland who has worked with children with special education needs for over a decade.
“Even with the important protections and guidelines set by IDEA, schools and districts across the country differ greatly in how they follow them,” Dr. Kearney said. “Without strong oversight from the Department of Education, these differences could grow worse, harming students with disabilities nationwide.”
She says the potential staffing cuts are already leading to confusion and uncertainty in schools.
“That confusion means questions are going unanswered, timelines are extended, and those critical pieces, the services that these students need with consistency, are completely not being given consistently at this point,” Dr. Kearney said.
Peterson worries that without OSERS protections guaranteeing educational support, future career opportunities and even representation for students with disabilities could be put at risk.
“We are now in a society where our kids are everywhere,” she said. “You see ads on social media, you see ads in Target, American Eagle, and our kids are there because we’re included. We’re not being hidden anymore. I don’t want us to have to turn back time, where, you know, we’re no longer an accepting and inclusive society.”
Health & Science
Listen: Diaspora-led medical organizations are rebuilding care in Palestine and Sudan
“Diaspora are emerging as important actors in their way of work because that’s what they do. They are transnationally located, but they act locally through these networks,” Alaa Dafallah, a doctoral candidate at Oxford University said.
read moreSupreme Court hears case on faith-based pregnancy center’s free speech subpoena challenge
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard a case Tuesday on whether First Choice Women’s Resource Center, a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center, can challenge a state subpoena in federal court before it is enforced.
New Jersey issued a subpoena seeking 28 categories of documents about the centers’ practices, including a list of donors, as part of an investigation into whether First Choice was misleading potential clients about their services.
First Choice sued New Jersey in December 2023, alleging that the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights and created a chilling effect on donors.
The subpoena at the heart of the dispute is non-self-executing, meaning that a court order is required for its enforcement. First Choice argues that the subpoena’s existence, even before it’s executed, is not without penalties.
“It says that if you fail to obey the subpoena again — not a later court order — if you fail to obey the subpoena, you could be subject to contempt, you could lose your business license,” Erin Hawley, the attorney for First Choice, said. “Those are the death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”
While the case is working its way through state court, First Choice went to federal court with a civil rights claim, but was told the case was “unripe”. A central legal question in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday was whether the case was “ripe” enough to be heard in federal court.
First Choice argued that the chilling effect of the subpoena was a “burden” on the center, which made the case “ripe” enough. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the subpoena had actually caused real harm before its enforcement.
“Even if we agree that your constitutional rights are arguably burdened, is it really occurring at the moment of receipt of the subpoena?” Jackson said.
New Jersey argued that First Choice’s claims are “tethered to a future downstream state court order” and not to the subpoena itself. Sundeep Iyer, the chief counsel to the New Jersey Attorney General, said that there was no evidence of actually being chilled by the subpoena over the last two years of litigation.
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned how such evidence could be gathered in the first place.
“Well, how do you get that evidence? Somebody comes in and says, ‘I’m chilled, I don’t want to reveal my name, address, phone number, et cetera, and here is my affidavit,’” Roberts said. “That’s not going to work, is it?”
Several nonprofits across the country have filed amicus briefs for First Choice, arguing that the case could majorly impact free association and speech in organizations nationwide.
Grayson Clary, staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said that several media outlets have received similar subpoenas, citing the Federal Trade Commission’s recent demands for internal records from watchdog nonprofit Media Matters.
“It makes sources less willing to talk to you, if they worry that speaking to you is going to get them dragged into some kind of investigation like this, and so the consequences can be really chilling,” Clary said.
However, Clary felt the oral argument was encouraging, noting how justices from both sides of the ideological spectrum were more skeptical of New Jersey’s claims.
“It’s always hard to read the tea leaves, but it sounded like a majority of the justices shared that attitude, and we certainly hope that’s the direction they’ll go in the ruling,” Clary said.
In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued that such First Amendment cases are important so that state investigatory tools aren’t used for retaliation.
“To ensure that these investigatory tools are not abused to retaliate against the ideological opponents of those in office, federal courts must promptly review claims that law enforcement subpoenas violate the First Amendment.”
Warnings over US dependence on foreign generic drug supply threaten quality and access to medications
WASHINGTON — Pharmaceutical executives and lawmakers warned that the United States’ reliance on foreign nations for key pharmaceutical components is disrupting the quality and access American patients have to generic medications at a Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on Wednesday.
“We’ve seen the results of that dependence,” said Committee Chairman Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). “Contaminated drugs, dangerous recalls and shortages that force doctors and patients to ration care.”
In particular, experts cautioned against relying on foreign nations for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), the most important component of a drug that provides the clinical effects of a medication.
Over 80% of APIs used in U.S. prescription drugs don’t have a domestic source, according to a study from Washington University in St. Louis. China primarily dominates the initial stages of the pharmaceutical supply chain: taking the starting compounds and synthesizing them into APIs.
American manufacturers then integrate APIs into the final dosage form to sell to wholesalers, who will distribute the product to pharmacies and hospitals. The structure of the supply chain forces American manufacturers to be dependent on other nations for the building blocks of the medications sold in the U.S.
But running a pharmaceutical plant is significantly cheaper in countries including China and India compared to the U.S., in part due to subsidies foreign governments provide to incentivize companies for their pharmaceutical exports, said Tom Neely, Chairman of Oxford Pharmaceuticals, a generic drug manufacturer in the U.S.
“Every tablet that leaves our factory is undercut by foreign government-subsidized competitors who treat medicine as a strategic export,” Neely said in written testimony. “The current U.S. trade model has distorted and manipulated the market, directly harming U.S. manufacturers like us and ultimately the well-being of American citizens.”
Experts also raised concerns about the drug safety standards of foreign manufacturing plants compared to those in U.S. facilities. Manufacturing plants in the U.S. operate under strict FDA guidelines, including continuous, surprise inspections, Neely said, while many foreign facilities go long periods without inspections and receive advance notice of the oversight.
A ProPublica investigation published in June revealed that the FDA allowed over 20 foreign factories to continue exporting drugs to the U.S. despite previously banning the plants because of manufacturing violations, raising questions about health risks from foreign-sourced drugs.
In October, the FDA identified significant safety violations at a generic manufacturing facility in India, including the presence of animals in API drums and contaminated storage environments.
“Is it too much to ask that plants don’t have flying birds and skittering lizards?” Sen. Scott said, referring to the FDA’s findings.
Patrick Cashman, the president of USAntibiotics, called on the federal government to create more opportunities for domestic manufacturers to be more competitive, including demanding greater transparency in pharmaceutical supply chains and government assurance of demand despite low-cost foreign production.
Domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing holds the same importance as semiconductor and defense manufacturing, Cashman said in written testimony.
“We are not asking for subsidies or handouts,” Cashman said at the hearing. “We are asking that when the government buys antibiotics, it prioritizes genuine, American manufacturing.”
Latest in Environment
‘Congress playing God’: A new era of the Endangered Species Act
Proposed rules from Trump’s Fish and Wildlife Service aim to weaken habitat designations and remove threatened species protections.
read moreListen: After a decade of minimal progress, local advocates redouble efforts to clean the Potomac River
WASHINGTON — The Potomac River has long faced pollution from sewage overflows, litter and more. Organizations made significant improvements to water quality for nearly a decade, but since 2016, progress has slowed. Now, local advocates are redoubling their efforts to restore fishing and swimming to the region.
The Potomac River spans over 380 miles and stretches into four states and D.C. Although there was some government aid, state and local initiatives have been most effective at changing the river’s course.
Federal agencies to prioritize public lands development over local preferences that conflict with administration goals
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is working to achieve their goals to develop public lands, even if they are “in conflict” with preferences of local communities, federal agency employees said in a Public Lands, Forests and Mining Subcommittee hearing Tuesday.
The Trump administration has been rescinding President Joe Biden-era land policies and frustration communities affected by those decisions.
In response, Democratic senators have proposed legislation to limit these changes.
On Tuesday, senators questioned four experts about the potential impacts of 26 bills, which spanned from wildfire prevention to withdrawing some federal lands from mining and road development.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle stressed the importance of listening to local communities and improving cooperation across all levels of government when managing public lands.
The federal employees testifying said that the administration’s development priorities take precedence.
Ten of the bills, sponsored by Democrats, seek to restrict mining leases and road development on some federal lands in various states.
The senators championing these bills said they received widespread support from local communities, and many of the pieces of proposed legislation already passed the subcommittee last year.
However, Jon Raby, the Nevada state director for the Bureau of Land Management, said the Trump administration will not support expanding the number of acres under environmental protections in order to accomplish their development goals.
“Under the Trump administration, the BLM is managing the public lands as national assets capable of growing our economy, helping balance the budget, generating revenue for the American taxpayers,” Raby said.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) sponsored a bill to remove some of the federal land in the Upper Pecos Watershed in northern New Mexico from eligibility for mining claims and leases.
In 2024, Biden’s Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland withdrew roughly 165,000 acres of public land in the Upper Pecos from mining claims and leases for 20 years — a decision that received support from local communities. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump’s BLM and the Forest Service rescinded that decision.
BLM is required to hold a 90-day public comment period when making decisions like that. They postponed a promised in-person public comment meeting in February, and it was never rescheduled. BLM went ahead with overturning the withdrawal in April.
“We want these decisions to be rooted in local communities, and yet they seem to have been cut out of this process,” Heinrich said.
Both Acting Associate Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Christopher French and Raby said their departments did not support Heinrich’s bill.
When asked if he would meet with local communities in the Upper Pecos watershed, French said he would be open to it but added that the administration is focused on achieving its development goals.
“We know that the comments that we received on (Haaland’s) withdrawal overwhelmingly supported the withdrawal, but across the agency, the administration’s policy is to preserve the spaces we have right now for future development,” French said.
French and Raby were more supportive of wildfire prevention bills, which aim to improve cooperation between federal, state and local governments. French said they aligned with the administration’s goals of improving the federal response to wildfires.
Subcommittee Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) sponsored a wildfire prevention bill and thanked the administration for the help streamlining bureaucratic processes for better land management in the western U.S.
“There’s broad agreement that the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have failed to manage our forests in a serious, incredible way over the years,” Barrasso said. “Though I’m grateful for President Trump and his agenda for improving many of these practices, there’s still plenty of work that needs to be done.”
The administration’s current plans to develop federal lands for energy ignore years of work that factored into proposed land management strategies for states like Oregon, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said.
“It’s further evidence that the Trump administration simply isn’t willing to look at locally driven, crafted solutions for responsible resource management,” Wyden said.
Latest in National Security
Watch: US Veteran helps lead DC protest against the Trump administration
Rig Madden has built a large social media following while protesting outside of Union Station.
read more“A security dilemma”: Japan struggles to find its global footing
After what many called a successful meeting with President Donald Trump, Japan’s new prime minister Sanae Takaichi is leading a major change to Japan’s decades of pacifism: an increase in the defense budget.
Takaichi announced during her first parliamentary address as prime minister that Japan would increase its defense spending to 2% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) by March 2026, nearly a year earlier than the proposed timeline announced in 2022 by former Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
This change in the defense budget timeline highlights the evolution of the United States-Japan relationship as the U.S. is beginning to encourage its allies to arm themselves and build a stronger defense.
Trump released the official United States National Security Strategy last week, which sets up the president’s defense goals and budget for his term. Among the major points were continued pressure on American allies, including Japan, to increase defense spending in support of American efforts to “harden and strengthen our military presence in the Western Pacific.”
“The Japanese, particularly the nationalists, have wanted…to spend more, and now the Americans, instead of telling them ‘no, don’t’, are now in a position where we’re encouraging them to do so,” said Brad Glosserman, senior advisor and Japan expert at the Pacific Forum. “The confluence of American calls for greater Japanese participation and contribution—with the conservative desire to do more— has aligned well.”
In the past, Japan held itself to a defense budget that is 1% of its GDP by keeping certain programs out of the category of defense spending. Glosserman said that the new increase in defense budget is not necessarily more money but a recharacterization of some current programs as defense spending that they once excluded.
“The Japanese managed to take out… things that most NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] countries would include, such as the Coast Guard and pensions for their military officers,” Glosserman said. “Now, what they’ve done is turn that stuff back in, and my understanding, this is a crude estimate that the call to double defense spending of 2% of GDP… at least half of that increase is nothing more than putting back in the accounts things that were taken out.”
This restructuring of the defense budget comes amid escalating tensions in the Pacific region. Takaichi has found herself in hot water with China less than two months into taking office. In November, during a speech to the Japanese parliament, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be “a situation threatening Japan’s survival” and could prompt deployment of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Chinese officials viewed that as an attack on their so-called claim of Taiwan as a Chinese territory, making charged statements online that appeared to many in the region as threatening.
As tensions continue to rise with countries like China, Japan is internally grappling with its own rules about war. Article 9 of its constitution states Japan will “renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation” and was written after World War II ended. However, Japan established its self-defense forces in 1954 to prepare for possible attacks from foreign powers.
Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for amending Article 9 to expand the powers of the self-defense forces. While there have been no formal amendments, Abe expanded the Japan Self-Defense Forces in 2015 to allow collective defense to assist Japanese allies, including the United States, if they are attacked. Retired U.S. Army Col. John Hansen, who is an adjunct professor of political science at Hawaii Pacific University, said that despite these growing regional tensions, Japan is unlikely to formally amend the constitution.
“Article 9 is essential. To even hint at aggression or offensive acts, the Japanese people will not abide in that. I think they can ramp up their defense, and there’s a deterrent effect with having credible, overwhelming capability to strike back, but not to use it in an offensive way,” Hansen said.
However, the United States has recently become more involved in other regions of the globe, with some conservative party members in the Japanese parliament worrying that the United States is pushing Japan to the side. Glosserman said that Japan has always had concerns that the United States could abandon the relationship forged through decades of diplomacy.
“Historically, relationships in Asia have been fundamentally different from alliances in Europe precisely because you don’t have a multilateral security architecture like NATO,” Glosserman said. “The Japanese have always worried about whether the United States was going to give them the attention they deserved and…whether the U.S. would honor those obligations in the way that the Japanese consider them.”
Karen Knudsen, chair of the board of directors of Japan-America Society of Hawaii (JASH), said the close relationship between the United States and Japan is a result of how the United States handled Japan after World War II.
“We could have tried [the Japanese emperor] for war crimes, we could have hanged him, and we didn’t,” Knudsen said. “We preserved him, although we moved the powers, but we were able to work with the people of Japan and build a strong alliance.”
Last August marked 80 years since the United States dropped the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading Japan to surrender and ultimately ending World War II. Since then, a nuclear bomb has not been used in war, but many countries in the Pacific region have proliferated nuclear weapons.
Trump declared on Truth Social in late October that he was instructing the Pentagon to begin nuclear testing again. This comes decades after a Congressional-led voluntary moratorium from 1992 and the United States’ signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, both barring nuclear testing. Trump’s argument is that other countries are also testing nuclear weapons and that the United States should be testing “on an equal basis.”
“Everybody’s always responding to everyone else, but they’re also responding to the belief that broadly speaking, nuclear weapons are key to national security, are an indicator of national status and prestige,” Glosserman said. “The biggest issue we need to be worried about in the region is the degree to which the Americans are turning a blind eye or actively encouraging our friends and allies to consider proliferating nuclear capabilities.”
Hansen echoed the idea that nuclear weapons are seen today as a status symbol. He said there is “a security dilemma” going on that is pushing countries in the region to proliferate nuclear weapons, with China, Russia and North Korea each possessing a nuclear arsenal. South Korea has been debating starting a nuclear program as well. That leaves Japan, which is wary of nuclear weapons because of its past.
“If you have a neighbor or a would-be aggressive neighbor that’s arming themselves with tremendous capability, then that impels you to do likewise. The dilemma is that the one that’s arming themselves sees a gap that they’re trying to fill, to bring parity… so you get this arms race,” Hansen said. “If you want to be heard in the international discourse, you arm yourself with nuclear weapons, and then people will pay attention. That’s kind of the bizarre rationale.”
“It’s so important to de-escalate. We’ve got to do that. I’m a soft diplomacy type of person,” Knudsen said. “Governments do weird things but you’ve got to maintain the people contact, so when things get back to normal, hopefully, you can rebuild that relationship.”
Lawmakers, companies debate effective solutions for major cyberattacks
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers debated how best to combat and prepare for the next cyberattack from foreign adversaries at a Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Media hearing on Tuesday.
The hearing comes after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr rolled back Biden administration cybersecurity regulations on telecommunications companies in November, made in the wake of the Salt Typhoon cyberattack last year.
Salt Typhoon is a group linked to the Chinese government whose goal is to hack into American networks and steal personal and classified data. The group led a years-long campaign to hack American telecommunications companies and steal data from prominent officials, including from President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, during the 2024 presidential campaign for counterintelligence purposes.
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) called out the FCC and Trump for removing regulations and signing an executive order in January that dismantled the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) created under former President Joe Biden. CSRB investigated the Salt Typhoon attacks until it was dismantled earlier this year.
“There’s still a lot we don’t know about the damage done by the Salt Typhoon attacks. In fact, President Trump fired the board that was investigating the attack,” Luján said. “But what we do know is that rolling back protections and requirements to harden our networks is putting us on a dangerous path, and it will not prevent or mitigate attacks like this in the future.”
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) pushed back on witness Robert Mayer, the senior vice president of cybersecurity and innovation at USTelecom. Peters said that USTelecom pushed the FCC to roll back efforts that “require telecommunications providers to have a cybersecurity plan and then stick to it.”
“Officials say… cybersecurity is a priority, but at the same time, they’re basically gutting all of our cybersecurity institutions,” Peters said. “From rolling back the FCC rule to ignoring their own guidelines regarding the handling of America’s most sensitive personal information, as well as pushing out cybersecurity experts all across government, firing the people who know what needs to be done.”
Mayer emphasized that regulating telecommunication networks is not as effective as encouraging innovation.
“We have a very sophisticated adversary, and the way to deal with this is collaboration with government, partnership with government, [and] accountability,” Mayer said. “We’re making progress, and we shouldn’t stifle that or kill that with a compliance regime where you have 40 to 70 percent of your practitioners doing paperwork. We need to focus on the threat.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) supported Carr’s efforts to roll back regulations of telecommunications companies.
“Our challenge, therefore, is to secure communications infrastructure effectively without creating excessive and useless regulation that stifles the very innovation that gives our competitive edge,” Cruz said.
Daniel Gizinski, the president of the satellite and space communications segment at Comtech, argued that a public-private partnership would allow the designers and builders of communication systems to give important input on closing security holes because they “have the best view of what the vulnerabilities are.”
“The application of well-intended checklists on defense systems often aren’t designed with the end system architecture in mind,” Gizinski said. “Having that in-depth, open conversation has been incredibly valuable in securing other systems that we’ve built and delivered over the years.”
Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, told lawmakers that rather than regulating telecommunications companies, they should strive for an incentive-based approach through public-private partnerships because regulations will ultimately lead to companies doing the “minimum necessary at the latest time possible.”
“If, on the other hand, you incentivize people to do the right thing… they’re more likely to line up your boards, your CEOs, everybody’s going to be in the same room because they’re going to say, look, we get a benefit by doing these things,” said Jaffer. “To me, that’s a more effective way to get to the goal you want.”
However, former FCC Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Debra Jordan warned that providers still need to be held accountable for basic cyber hygiene that would prevent attacks from happening so easily.
“We must establish a verification regime to ensure the security of our nation’s communications infrastructure from the largest to the smallest providers. We’ve seen time and again through outage and enforcement investigations, where providers have not implemented even some of the most basic cyber hygiene uniformly across their networks, such as changing default passwords,” Jordan said.
Published in conjunction with 
Latest in Living
Washington Spirit fans channel activism pitchside with ‘Free DC’
Spirit fans advocate for D.C. home rule at the 51st minute of games, bringing community activism to soccer stadiums nationwide.
read moreWatch: DC breaks Guinness World Record for most couples kissing under a mistletoe
WASHINGTON — Over 1,400 couples flocked to the National Kiss Under the National Mistletoe event Saturday evening, making DC the new world record-holder for the most simultaneous kisses under a mistletoe, according to event organizers.
With 1,435 couples locking lips for around five seconds, the gathering beats the previous record of 480 set in 2019 at an Anheuser-Busch event in St. Louis.
For attendees Ysela Coreas and Kevin Miranda, the evening spectacle was extra special.
“We knew each other since middle school and pretty much recently tied the knot, and not only that, I recently gave her a promise ring as well,” Miranda said.
Watch the video report here:
As cities test guaranteed income, congresswoman pushes for federal pilot
In 2018, Moriah Rodriguez was in a car accident that left her with a traumatic brain injury, unable to work. A few years later, she and her four children were on the brink of homelessness when she enrolled in the Denver Basic Income Project.
Rodriguez, who now serves on the Board of Directors for the DBIP, used the unconditional cash transfers provided to her through the program to find a place to live and pay off debt. She believes that, if not for the program, her life would be fundamentally different.
“I don’t believe that the way that the system is set up is giving people the opportunity to be successful,” Rodriguez said.
The Denver Basic Income Project is one of many city- and county-wide guaranteed income pilot programs throughout the country. These initiatives, which gained popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic, are experimental, providing cash payments to specific groups for a limited time to study their effects.
In October, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) introduced federal legislation to establish a federal guaranteed income pilot program. The congresswoman has advocated for the initiative in past legislative sessions, pointing to increasing economic inequality as proof of the program’s necessity.
“The greedy are getting the majority and the needy are becoming even more needy,” Watson Coleman said. “That’s un-American as far as I’m concerned.”
Watson Coleman said that guaranteed income can lessen economic struggle by plainly distributing resources and avoiding government bureaucracy.
Researchers echoed this sentiment. They say cash is flexible, non-paternalistic and efficient.
“People want guaranteed income to do all the things, right? And that’s really because cash can do all the things,” said Misuzu Schexnider, who works at UChicago’s Inclusive Economy Lab. “It’s really one of the few interventions that can help people achieve their goals, regardless of what the goal is.”
However, Schexnider said that this versatility can make the impact of these programs difficult to measure.
Benjamin Henwood, the director of the Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research at USC, expressed a similar concern. In a study exploring the impact of cash distribution to people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Henwood found that while recipients of the transfer were more likely to report not being unhoused, there was no dramatic change that would statistically tie this finding to the cash transfer.
Henwood thus described the cash transfers as “incremental, not transformational,” and said the small amount of money transferred and the short duration of the program might have limited the statistical efficacy of the intervention.
Still, the Denver Basic Income Project, which to date has deployed $10.8 million to over 800 families and individuals, found that almost half of participants reported moving into stable independent housing within a year, a decisive success.
And, while the quantitative data from these pilot studies can be a mixed bag, the qualitative stories that these studies gather from participants, like Rodriguez, are “overwhelmingly positive,” Schexnider said.
Both Schexnider and Henwood also emphasized that their findings run counter to the stigma often associated with welfare programs.
Welfare is often mired in a societal belief that equates receiving assistance with personal failure like laziness or irresponsibility. Some assume that participants will spend the additional money on what Henwood calls “temptation goods,” like drugs or alcohol.
The researchers said these beliefs are simply not true. In fact, Henwood said that his study was just as much about proving that basic income did not lead to an increased purchase of temptation goods as it was about demonstrating the success of the intervention.
Meanwhile, in a basic income study conducted by non-profit OpenResearch, Schexnider said recipients worked less, but only by a few hours each week. She said that most spent the additional time on childcare, transportation or much-needed rest.
“For some in our country and globally, it’s a bit of a convenient myth — convenient for some — to paint people with low income as somehow lazy and deficient. And the data doesn’t bear that out,” said Elizabeth Crowe, the coordinator of the Elevate Boulder Guaranteed Income Program.
These researchers all welcomed the idea of a federal program, but highlighted the necessity for concrete, outcome-driven details in the project’s proposal.
In the proposed legislation, the federal pilot program would last three years, and 10,000 participants would receive a cash payment each month equal to the fair market rent for a two-bedroom home in the ZIP Code in which they reside. Watson Coleman said that she would leave the details, like who is eligible for the program, up to “authentic technicians” or experts in the field.
Part of the researchers’ support is rooted in the fact that the program is not novel. Aside from initiatives like the Denver Basic Income Project, cash transfers are considered by many to be the standard of charitable giving. And, Schexnider said there are already successful federal programs that are essentially cash transfers, like the Child Tax Credit.
For Gwen Battis, the project manager for the DBIP, the federal pilot program is an “inevitable need.”
“As AI takes jobs, we’re going to need a way to participate in the economy and pay for things,” she said.
In highlighting the effect of AI on employment, Battis hits upon a key driver in the movement for basic income.
Not only is the country experiencing record income inequality, there are also questions about how artificial intelligence will negatively impact the job market.
Technology executives have indicated that they aspire to create artificial general intelligence, which is essentially a machine capable of performing all of the economically valuable work that humans do on a day-to-day basis.
Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI start-up Anthropic, told Axios that AI could soon wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs.
“Most [lawmakers] are unaware that this is about to happen,” Amodei said. “It sounds crazy, and people just don’t believe it.”
In recent years, Republican lawmakers on the state level have pushed back against guaranteed income pilot programs.
Legislators in states like Arizona, Iowa, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin have all introduced bills to ban income programs. They say such programs make participants overly reliant on the government.
State Rep. John Gillette of Arizona told Business Insider last year that guaranteed income programs are “socialist” and a “killer for the economy.”
“Is money a birthright now?” Gillette asked. “Do we just get born and get money from the government? Because I think the Founding Fathers would say that is very contrary to our capitalist system and encouraging people to work.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a county in his state to block a basic income program. In the legal filing, he called the initiative a “socialist experiment” that was an “illegal and illegitimate government overreach.”
While their Republican counterparts in the U.S. Congress have yet to directly comment on the federal basic income bill, they have demonstrated a reticence for more expansive welfare policies.
The House resoundingly passed a resolution on Nov. 21 that denounced the “horrors of socialism.” No Republican lawmaker voted against the measure, and 86 Democrats joined Republicans to approve it.
Some are also skeptical about the practical reality of the basic income proposal and other expansive welfare policies.
In his home state, Grady Lowery, a lecturer at the University of Tennessee, said politicians are actively presenting their state as a haven for those escaping the “socialist” New York and its mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.
“Not only is there not support for Mamdani here, there’s active fear and hostility towards this kind of socialist dictatorial figure that he represents,” Lowery said.
Lowery said the bill might have potential if the legislators could avoid the “socialist pejorative label,” which they have already garnered.
Watson Coleman is undeterred. The bill is now pending in the House Ways and Means Committee.
“I don’t care if we’re in this administration that didn’t want to shelter, didn’t want to feed, and didn’t want to give health care to (people),” Watson-Coleman said. “I’m still going to advance my legislation that I think is legitimate work for the federal government to do.”
Published in conjunction with 
Latest Business
Supreme Court weighs consequences for internet provider liability, record labels in copyright dispute
Cox Communications Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment poses major implications for consumer internet access amid copyright violations.
read moreLawmakers pressure House to vote on congressional stock trading ban
WASHINGTON – House Republican leadership is facing bipartisan pressure to call for a vote on banning congressional stock trading as the House Administration Committee held a hearing on the topic Wednesday.
“Mark my words, a bill will come to the floor,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said during a press conference before the hearing.
Passed in 2012, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge or STOCK Act requires members of Congress and other government officials to report financial transactions exceeding $1,000 within 45 days. It also prohibits insider trading, or buying stocks based on access to confidential information.
But Fitzpatrick is part of a coalition of lawmakers who say the STOCK Act hasn’t been enforced. For years, they’ve advocated for alternative legislation with stronger restrictions and enforcement on stock trading.
Members from both parties have introduced a total of 25 such proposals in the current 119th congressional term.
“People often want to talk about all the partisan divides,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who shared a fist bump with Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) during the press conference. “There are plenty of those. There are also these areas where there is true work.”
And Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said Tuesday she planned to file a discharge petition to force a vote if the House does not start the markup process on a bill Wednesday.
Yet sentiments inside the hearing room remained partisan.
Ranking member Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) pointed to President Donald Trump’s recent purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery bonds amid the bidding war for the media conglomerate. Morelle said Trump would profit from a merger that raises bond prices.
“Why should the president enrich him or herself to rig the rules of the game while everyday Americans are struggling with the cost of living?” Morelle said.
Other House Democrats, including Reps. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Norma Torres (D-Calif.) said Trump reaps profit from his proposed tariffs. Experts say the tariffs inflicted uncertainty on markets worldwide.
Torres said such insider knowledge trading extended to others in the administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who sold Trump Media shares the day Trump announced tariffs that caused a stock market drop.
“As head of the Department of Justice and a close friend of President Trump, she had access to information that working families in my district could never dream of having,” Torres said.
Republican members on the committee countered by invoking Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) stock trading portfolio, which has caused controversy throughout her decades-long career.
“It’s critical that all members are held to the same standard, whether they are a first term member or a certain former Speaker of the House, who I would know has not been mentioned once by the Democrat members of this committee,” Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said.
During his remarks, Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) unveiled a poster that read, “The Pelosis profited $130 million over their time in Congress.”
Still, like several of his colleagues, he circled back to bipartisan messaging.
“There are egregious examples on both sides of the aisle,” Murphy said.
Committee chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) said he felt the hearing was productive after it had ended. But he did not say whether there would be a markup on a STOCK Act alternative anytime soon.
Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) said it’s possible the hearing is part of a “delaying tactic” to discuss a stock trading ban without bringing a vote to the floor. That effort, he said, is also bipartisan.
“The opponents are quiet,” Magaziner said. “They don’t get in front of the cameras and say, ‘No, we want to keep trading stocks.’ But they are in the ear of leadership on both parties.”
Supreme Court scrutinizes Trump’s sweeping tariffs, limits of presidential power in historic case
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices sharply questioned President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda and appeared skeptical of its legality under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) during oral arguments on Wednesday.
The consolidated cases were brought before the Court by small businesses—an educational toy company and wine importer—as well as a coalition of 12 states.
IEEPA grants the president the ability to regulate economic transactions after declaring a national emergency. While all presidents since Jimmy Carter have invoked IEEPA, they have done so to impose sanctions in response to specific national security threats. Trump is the first to rely on the Act to enact tariffs on imported goods.
Several justices expressed doubt regarding the president’s power to unilaterally impose tariffs, an authority traditionally held by the legislative branch according to Article I of the Constitution.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether IEEPA provides either a statutory or historical basis to impose tariffs.
“Can you point to any other place in the Code or any other time in history where that phrase, together, ‘regulate…importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?” Barrett said.
Her question prompted back-and-forth dialogue with Sauer, who ultimately pointed to a “contested application”—as described by Barrett—in the Trading with the Enemies Act (TWEA).
The authority question raises the applicability of the major questions doctrine, which holds that Congress must provide explicit congressional authorization before the executive branch takes actions of “vast economic or political significance.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, whose vote is expected to help swing the decision, contested Sauer’s claim that the major questions doctrine “does not apply here.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also said she “does not understand” the argument that “foreign powers or even an emergency can do away with the major questions doctrine.”
Sauer reiterated that the president imposed tariffs as a means to “regulate” imports and that their revenue-raising effect is “only incidental.”
Both conservative and liberal justices challenged Sauer on this point, with Sotomayor pointing out that IEEPA does not contain a statute permitting revenue generation “as a side effect or directly.”
“It’s been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit,” Roberts said. “I would say that’s raising revenue domestically.”
While Sauer contended against the idea that regulatory tariffs are “distinct” from taxes, Neal Katyal, a lawyer representing small businesses against the tariffs, argued the opposite.
Katyal described the president’s tariff agenda as resulting in “one of the largest tax increases in our lifetimes.” He also focused on the term “regulate” in IEEPA, its interpretation being a key point of contention among the parties.
“[IEEPA] uses ‘regulate,’ which Congress has used hundreds of times, never once to include tariffs,” Katyal said. “And that is why, even though presidents have used IEEPA to impose economic sanctions thousands of times, no president in IEEPA’s 50-year lifetime has ever tried to impose tariffs.”
Several competing amicus briefs also home in on this language. Zac Morgan of the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF)—a law firm and policy center that filed a brief against the imposition of tariffs—said that “this entire case is about what…‘regulate importation’ means.”
“‘Regulate’ and ‘importation’ are separated by 16 words, and all of those words involve compellence, voidance…the kind of things you would expect to see in a sanctions authority,” Morgan said.
According to Morgan, IEEPA is intended for imposing financial sanctions and quotas as opposed to conferring tariffs or “setting rates at whim.”
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) focused on different considerations in its brief, namely the limits of judicial review on the president’s international governance. The brief mentions a key phrase in Section 1701 of IEEPA, “any unusual and extraordinary threat,” which serves as a “trigger” for the emergency authority outlined in Section 1702.
“When we’re talking about the national and international decision making relating to IEEPA, the president is given more information than any of us can have in terms of intelligence,” said Nathan Moelker, senior associate counsel at the ACLJ. “In that context, judicial review of what constitutes an unusual, extraordinary threat doesn’t fit with how IEEPA is structured.”
More broadly, Moelker emphasized that this is not an “easy” case for justices to wrestle with as they “navigate specific statutory language.”
Trump took to Truth Social on Tuesday to reiterate the case’s importance for his economic agenda, referring to it as “LIFE OR DEATH for our Country.” He previously floated the idea of attending the arguments but backtracked earlier this week.
In attendance at the Court were Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Several lawmakers, including Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) were also present.
If the president’s tariffs are struck down by the high court, more than $100 billion in refunds may be issued to importers. A decision against Trump would also mark the Supreme Court’s most significant rebuke yet of his presidential authority in the second term.
A decision is expected by summer 2026, but the expedited nature of the case makes an earlier ruling possible.
SOTU: Health Care
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Congress should approve his plan to replace Obamacare with a new health care program that would provide “affordable alternative” insurance options and criticized Democrats for trying to impose “a socialist takeover of our health care system.”
“A good life for American families requires the most affordable, innovative and high-quality health care system on earth,” Trump said in his third State of the Union address.
Trump said he has proposed health care plans that would be up to 60% cheaper than the Affordable Care Act plans. Both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond when asked if a specific replacement plan has existed or ever will.
The president blamed Democrats for not providing the American people with the health care reforms he has promised.
“As we work to improve Americans’ health care, there are those who want to take away your health care, take away your doctor, and abolish private insurance entirely,” said Trump, referring to the Democrats.
Democrats stood up at this comment, pointed their fingers at Trump and shouted “YOU.”
Trump said 130 Democrats endorse legislation to impose a “socialist takeover” of the health care system by “taking away the private health insurance plans of 180 million.”
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., are pushing for a “Medicare for All” plan that would end private health insurance while other candidates like former Vice President Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., are pushing to expand on Obamacare.
“We will never let socialism destroy American health care,” Trump said.
Trump emphasized the administration’s efforts to protect patients with pre-existing conditions, to which Democrats threw up their hands and shook their heads in disagreement. Led by House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate and House Democrats brought more than 80 patients, doctors and health care advocates from across the country as guests to the speech.
“President Trump will speak to an audience filled with Americans who are suffering because of his broken promises on prescription drug costs and his all-out assault on Americans with preexisting conditions,” Pelosi said in a press release Tuesday morning.
The president also called upon Congress to pass legislation to lower prescription drug prices.
“Get a bill to my desk, and I will sign it into law without delay,” the president said.
Democrats responded to this by booing and holding up three fingers to represent H.R. 3, legislation proposed by the late Rep. Elijah E. Cummings that would require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate certain drug prices. The bill has been on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk for over a month after being passed in the House.
Generic prescription drug prices dropped 1% in 2018, the first price drop in 45 years, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump said it was the first time in 51 years. Brand-name drug prices, however, are still increasing.
Trump said the administration will continue to make health care more transparent by requiring hospitals to make their prices negotiated with insurers public and easily accessible online. He also pointed to the passage of administration-backed legislation called “Right to Try,” which allows terminally ill patients access to drugs not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration if they feel they have tried all other options.
He also said he has launched new initiatives to improve care for Americans with kidney disease, Alzheimer’s and those struggling with mental health challenges, in addition to pursuing new cures for childhood cancer and AIDS.
The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday afternoon to further discuss Trump’s health care policies and overcoming pharmaceutical barriers in particular.
Trump Sticks By Wall in State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump’s call for a wall to secure America’s southern border in his State of the Union address Tuesday night was no surprise to opponents.
Jennifer Johnson, the policy director at the Southern Border Communities Coalition, said Trump continually characterizes the southern border as a violent area.
“More of a reality check, these are families and children seeking protection, fleeing spiraling violence and poverty,” she said.
Chris Montoya, who served as a Customs and Border Protection agent for 21 years, said that “crime rates are pretty low in border cities. Being a border patrol agent is one of the safest law enforcement jobs. All those things together means a safe border.”
Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., invited as his guest a mother who had been separated from her children at the border.
Other Democrats brought undocumented immigrants as their guests, including Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J.
Rep. Sheila Jackson, D-Texas, was enthusiastic about their attendance at the address. “Their presence here today is representative of the big tent that America is,” she said.
In his address, Trump attributed what he called at crisis at the border to America’s “reduced jobs, lower wages, overburdened schools, and hospitals that are so crowded you can’t get in.” He referenced San Diego and El Paso as being cities that were once violent, and now safe with the addition of physical barriers.
Trump also mentioned the prevalence of MS-13 within the country. “They almost all come through our Southern border,” he said.
Montoya said MS-13 members do enter through the southern border on rare occasions, but it is uncommon for CBP agents to make an arrest.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin is the ranking member on the Senate Subcommittee for Border Security and Immigration. He said nothing changed in Trump’s rhetoric. “If we’re waiting on him, we’re not going to get this solved,” he said.
Washingtonians alternately protest, celebrate the State of the Union
WASHINGTON – DC-area residents had very different reactions to President Donald Trump’s second State of the Union address Tuesday night. But whether they celebrated or denounced the event, emotions were strong.
Around 40-50 people gathered at each of two intersections near the Capitol ahead of the address — far fewer than the 400 people who protested last year, according to Resist DC, the community action group that organized both years’ protests.
People lined the sidewalks along the streets that President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and other Trump cabinet members’ motorcades were expected pass by. They held homemade signs lit with string lights so they would be visible to government officials in their cars and chanted anti-Trump messages to music and drums.
Eileen Minarick, 70, said she was protesting simply “because the state of our union is terrible.”
Elsewhere in the city, local bar patrons gathered to drink beer, compete in presidential bingo and watch the State of the Union.
Grassroots activist group CODEPINK hosted a number of guest speakers, including actor Danny Glover, for a lively discussion before the main event. Topics ranged from the Bolivarian revolution to ending domestic violence.
Anita Jenkins, spokeswoman for Stand Up for Democracy, riled the crowd with a call to establish the District of Columbia the 51st state in the United States.
“The people of D.C. have no representation… We have nobody to speak for us,” she said. Modifying the words of America’s early founders, she said, “Taxation without representation is a rip-off.”
As President Trump appeared on the projector, shouts of disapproval rose from the bar patrons. The State of the Union 2019 had begun and the energy was energetic in its moroseness.
Across town, the atmosphere was also charged. Members of DC Young Republicans and Arlington Falls Church Young Republicans filled a restaurant for a celebratory viewing party.
“In the past, most of the people in this room voted for a wall… but the proper wall never got built,” said Donald Trump. He paused and then said, “I’ll get it built.” Hoots and hollers erupted in the bar and two girls were seen smiling and hugging each other.
Though Trump stressed unity in his national address, DC-area residents remained divided in their reactions.
2020 Candidates Alternate Cheers, Hisses to Trump Wall, Immigration Proposals during State of Union
WASHINGTON – Several Democratic 2020 presidential candidates expressed their displeasure with many of President Donald Trump’s policies during the State of the Union address Tuesday.
Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., could be seen shaking their heads when Trump mentioned controversial topics such as his commitment to building a border wall and the dangers of migrant caravans heading to the U.S. southern border.
Harris, who announced her candidacy on Jan. 21, shook her head and visibly mouthed, “They’re not,” as Trump said, “Large, organized caravans are on the march to the United States.”
In a Facebook Live address before the State of the Union, Harris told viewers, “It’s a moment for a president to rise above politics and unite the country with a vision that includes all Americans, not just the ones who may have voted for them. It’s a moment to bring us together.”
Early in the address, Harris was often reluctant to give Trump a standing ovation, asking her colleagues, “Really?” as they cheered the president’s comments about space exploration.
The candidates and their Democratic colleagues booed and hissed as Trump labeled the numerous investigations into his campaign finance and relationship with Russia “ridiculous partisan investigations.”
“If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation,” he said. “It just doesn’t work that way!”
Democrats cheered later as Trump mentioned that women have filled 58 percent of new jobs in the past year. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has formed a presidential exploratory committee, pointed at the newly elected House Democrats, who stood up and chanted, “USA, USA.”
“I think he didn’t realize that all the female jobs he created were for [congresswomen],” Gillibrand said after the speech.
The Democratic candidates stood and applauded with everyone in the chamber when Trump recognized World War II veterans, a SWAT team member and a childhood cancer survivor.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., sat stoically as Trump denounced socialism. Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, is widely considered likely e to enter the presidential race. Unlike Sanders, Gillibrand and Harris stood and applauded as Trump said, “America will never be a socialist country.”
TRUMP STRIKES CHORD WITH WOMEN, FALLS FLAT ON BIPARTISAN BORDER WALL PITCH
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump got one of his biggest rounds of applause during his State of the Union address Tuesday night when he noted that Congress now has a record-high number of elected women, but it wasn’t lost on the crowd that when the women rose to cheer they were mostly on the Democratic side of the aisle.
“Americans can be proud that we have more women in the workforce than ever before,” Trump said as the women lawmakers rose to clap and celebrate. He then advised them “Don’t sit. You’re going to like this.”
“Exactly one century after the Congress passed the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote, we also have more women serving in the Congress than at any time before,” he said. There were 117 women elected to Congress in 2018.
Bipartisan chants of “USA! USA!” filled the chamber as both the Democrats and Republicans broke into uproarious applause. Many of the Democratic women wore white and donned pins that read “ERA YES,” in a nod to the women of the suffragette movement.
Trump called his list of priorities “the agenda of the American people” in his second State of the Union address Tuesday, which was delayed a week because of the 35-day government shutdown, which didn’t end until the previous Friday. The address was the first the president has delivered before the new Democratic majority in the House.
The president remained on-script for the duration of the 84-minute speech and touted his administration’s achievements from the past two years. He also laid out several legislative priorities going forward, including a “smart, strategic, see-through steel barrier,” an infrastructure bill and the eradication of HIV and AIDS.
Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., was glad that health care was a topic in the speech, while Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., described the speech as “terrific.”
“We haven’t gotten that right when it comes to protection our citizens with pre-existing conditions, correcting all the problems and costs associated with the ACA,” French said. “I like that he kept an emphasis on that while also tackling the prescription drug process.”
For Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., laying out these broad initiatives wasn’t enough.
“I wrote down a number of initiatives — defense spending, cancer research, transportation, infrastructure — and never heard anything of how we’re going to pay for them,” he said.
The president also pushed his plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and to reduce drastically the number of troops in Afghanistan.
Among Democrats, reactions were mixed as Trump highlighted his achievements. When Trump lauded the U.S. increase in gas and oil production, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who has championed a Green New Deal to address accelerating climate change, remained seated.
Many Democrats applauded Trump’s push for a new infrastructure bill and decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who sat behind Trump with Vice President Mike Pence, was clearly following a printed version of the speech. She applauded when Trump mentioned criminal justice reform and bipartisan efforts on lowering drug costs and furthering women’s rights.
After praising a recent bipartisan effort to secure criminal justice reform, Trump shifted to a project he said would require the same bipartisan effort: a southern border wall.
“Simply put, walls work and walls save lives,” he said. “So let’s work together, compromise and reach a deal that will truly make America safe.”
However, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was not encouraged by the president’s attempt to strike a bipartisan tone.
“I just don’t think he is to be trusted,” she said. “This is not a president who is working for the middle class of this country.”
Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said that while parts of Trump’s speech were good, he was too combative at times.
“There should have been more emphasis on the fact that the government was shut down and we all need to work together to bring it back,” he said. “Blaming the Democrats is not going to keep the government open.”
Freshmen members of Congress excited, disappointed at their first State of the Union address
WASHINGTON — Before attending his first State of the Union address, Rep. Jefferson Van Drew, D-N.J., felt a sense of excitement and joy, but also feared the president might once again fan partisan flames by rehashing controversial issues.
“I hope that right now, he doesn’t talk about closing the government again. I hope he doesn’t talk right now about declaring a national emergency. I would so much rather see that we try to work together and get something done. That requires flexibility on Democrats side as well. Both sides have to do this,” said Van Drew.
Partisanship is the reason the approval rating for Congress is so low, but issues like border security, and infrastructure deserve cooperation between the two parties, said Van Drew.
“Rather than just argue and disagree and investigative and be hurtful on both sides, maybe we can actually get something get done.”
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Chris Pappas, D-N.H.
Although having been full-fledged members of Congress for a little over a month, the freshmen class of senators and representatives still retains a “sense of awe” about the State of the Union address, said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H. Pappas said he hoped Trump would strike a conciliatory tone with Democrats, allowing lawmakers to avoid a second government shutdown.
Pappas brought a transgender military veteran from his home state to hear the president as a symbol of his hope that Trump’s transgender military service ban will be lifted.
“That doesn’t make us any safer and in fact plays politics with the military,” he said.
In addition to passing social justice reform, Pappas said he would like Trump to speak about the opioid crisis, prescription drug costs and infrastructure — and Trump did.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill.
In Illinois Rep. Sean Casten’s dreams, Trump’s State of the Union address would make climate change a priority, but said his expectations were low. Trump did not in fact mention the environment.
“Truth is what I hope he doesn’t say is what I fear he will say,” Casten said, “which is that he’s going to threaten to shut down the government again if he doesn’t get a wall.”
Casten’s guest was Julie Caribeaux, the executive director of Family Shelter Service, which receives federal aid and provides support for victims of domestic abuse. He said domestic violence victims are some of the “primary victims” of Trump’s rhetoric.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y.
Rep. Anthony Brindisi, D-NY, was hoping for a message of bipartisanship and unity, things that “the American people are calling for.” Trump did call on Congress to act together on many issues.
Brindisi’s top priorities this year are trying to find common ground with the Republicans on immigration reform, infrastructure and lowering prescription drug costs. On infrastructure, he said he specifically wanted to hear Trump’s ideas on investing in job training programs. Trump mentioned all the issues, but with little specificity except that he wants a border wall and enforcement to stop what he called “caravans of migrants” heading to the southern border.
“Those are things that I talked about during the campaign that many people back in upstate New York are calling for and those are things I hope he does say,” Brindisi said.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev.
Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., said she gets excited every time she walks onto the House floor, and Tuesday was no exception. Although there were parts of the speech she did not agree with, namely Trump’s insistence on a border wall, Lee said she appreciated the call for bipartisanship.
Lowering prescription drug prices, investing in infrastructure and a comprehensive border control strategy — these are all components of his speech Lee said she could agree with.
“These are all ideas I can get behind and they work together to produce some results for American families,” she said.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Deb Halaand, D-N.M.
Rep. Deb Haaland, D-N.M., said she was dismayed about Trump’s urgency regarding funding for a border wall.
“I wasn’t surprised. Let’s put it that way about the president’s speech. I mean, of course, we don’t want a wall,” said Halland. “He instilled fear and everybody about the danger, you know, the danger that’s coming across the border.”
Haaland hopes to focus on promoting awareness about climate change and wished the President would be more receptive to the diverse issues and people around the country.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., said he enjoyed his first State of the Union in a historical sense, but wanted President Trump to address issues he feels are important, including raising the minimum wage and healthcare.
Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, D-Ill.
He said while the president did mention lowering prescription drug costs, there was another area of healthcare that was not noted, such as the millions who do not have healthcare at all.
“He wrapped himself around a lot of patriotism and recognition of your courageous battles and victories and but in the end, I think he failed to address important things more,” Garcia said.
Post-SOTU Interviews with Illinois Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowski and Cheri Bustos
Our Alex Lederman sat down with Illinois Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowski and Cheri Bustos after the State of the Union to hear their thoughts on President Obama’s address.
Schakowski — Evanston’s congresswoman since 1999 — said “(Obama)’s vision of what makes our country strong was so human and so true.”
Bustos said Obama is focused on the future — our children and grandchildren — and working together to solve the nation’s problems.
Medill’s State of the Union night on social media
Medill on the Hill produces live State of the Union broadcast
WASHINGTON — It was the third day of reporting for the 21 students in Medill on the Hill. It also happened to be the day the president would deliver his final State of the Union address.
Months ago, buoyed by the excitement of the possibilities and the folly of youth, some of us came up with the idea of taking Medill on the Hill to a new level — producing live TV while also finding new ways of storytelling for the website and social media.
On State of the Union night, Jan. 12, the Washington web team led by Alex Duner and Celena Chong managed the flow of copy and constant web updates streaming in from reporters around Capitol Hill and elsewhere in D.C. There also was a constant stream of @medillonthehill tweets and snapchats as well as several Periscopes.
Tyler Kendall, Allyson Chiu and Shane McKeon were responsible for the main story, and Chiu said the experience was, “the highlight” of her journalism career.
“It was hectic, crazy and we were definitely all running on adrenaline by the end of the night,” she said.
Other reporters were assigned to stories on specific issues the president mentioned, or how local college students reacted to the speech. One even tweeted the speech in Spanish.
My task was to produce the Washington end of a live television broadcast.
Nine months ago Jesse Kirsch came back from 2015 Medill on the Hill with an idea for Carlin McCarthy, another producer with the Northwestern News Network, and me.
He said, with the optimism of a television anchor, that for the 2016 State of the Union we should produce a live broadcast with analysts at our home studio in Evanston and reporters in our D.C. bureau and on Capitol Hill. I said, with the skepticism of a television producer, that I thought he was crazy.
It took long nights, patience and a lot of support from the Medill faculty and staff, but we pulled it off.
Jesse opened the show in Evanston and before we knew it Isabella Gutierrez was doing a live hit from the Washington bureau. Then we were live in Statuary Hall with Noah Fromson, followed by a live report from graduate student Ryan Holmes on what to watch for just minutes before we streamed the live feed of President Barack Obama addressing a joint session of Congress for his final State of the Union.
We did a live interviews with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, wrote scripts while we counted down the seconds until they were read and gathered quotes from senators and members of Congress. Alex Lederman also provided quick-turn video interviews with two congresswomen.
Associate Producer Geordan Tilley, who interviewed Durbin, was nervous before the show, but she said she is proud of the Medill effort.
“I thought the show was some of our best work, Tilley said. “Especially considering how many firsts were involved, not the least of which was our first time going live.”
Medill Today | Wednesday, November 19, 2025
“We’re Watching”: how advocates are holding detention centers accountable by ‘witnessing’
by Isabella Jacob | December 17, 2025 | Featured, Immigration | 0 Comments
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In May, Marjorie Ziefert and Chuck Kieffer realized that people in their community were disappearing, taken by...Washington Spirit fans channel activism pitchside with ‘Free DC’
by Desiree Luo | December 16, 2025 | Featured, Living | 0 Comments
Spirit fans advocate for D.C. home rule at the 51st minute of games, bringing community activism to soccer stadiums nationwide.
Digital footprints are affecting this new generation of politicians, but do voters care?
by Katareena Roska | December 16, 2025 | Featured, Politics | 0 Comments
Political scandals are not new. Digital footprints are. How are political candidates adapting?
Watch: DC breaks Guinness World Record for most couples kissing under a mistletoe
by Philip Lam | December 14, 2025 | Featured, Living, Topics | 0 Comments
1,435 couples simultaneously puckered up early Saturday evening, breaking the previous world record of 480.
Watch: US Veteran helps lead DC protest against the Trump administration
by Aanika Sawhney | December 13, 2025 | Featured, National Security, Politics | 0 Comments
Rig Madden has built a large social media following while protesting outside of Union Station.