Latest in Politics
FROM AIR TRAVEL TO FOOD ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES, SHUTDOWN AFTEREFFECTS LINGER
Over the course of what ended up being the longest shutdown in U.S. history, many industries were harmed in ways that they are still recovering from.
read morePhoto Essay: Nevada congressional delegation hosts Capitol Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony
WASHINGTON — Members of the Nevada Congressional delegation and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson hosted this year’s Capitol Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony on Tuesday.
Boasting 20,000 ornaments, the 53-foot tall tree was brought to the Capitol ahead of the Christmas holidays.
(Gabe Hawkins/MNS)
Spectators assembled in front of the tree ahead of the event (Gabe Hawkins/MNS)
The annual tree lighting ceremony was hosted by the Nevada Congressional delegation this year. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson also attended. (Gabe Hawkins/MNS)
The tree was intricately decorated with 20,000 ornaments, according to Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV). (Gabe Hawkins/MNS)
(Gabe Hawkins/MNS)
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson took photos with guests following the event. (Gabe Hawkins/MNS)
Supreme 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.”
Latest in Education
Senators debate need for transparency in higher education costs
While the GOP is demanding a more transparent process for families investing in higher education, Democrats say it doesn’t go far enough to address rising costs of attendance and affordability.
read more‘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.”
For student parents, federal child care funding hangs in the balance
Daniel A. Gonzalez, 41, is a nursing student at Jamestown Community College in New York and a parent to 14-month-old Sebastiano. During his son’s first year, Gonzalez juggled night shifts at a medical clinic, diapers and classes on just a few hours of sleep — earning around $36,000 while trying to cover the soaring costs of baby formula and child care.
Gonzalez believes education is key to building stronger parents and, in turn, stronger children. Affordable child care can reduce obstacles for student parents like him, he said.
“We don’t have people in the community going to school — simply because they can’t afford child care,” Gonzalez said. “They’ve got to wait 16 or 18 years before they can try to give their kids a better life by going back to school — but at that point, your child’s already grown.”
The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program has aimed to ease that burden since its launch in 1999. The federal initiative provides $80 million in grants to colleges with accredited child care, helping students cover child care costs while pursuing degrees. But now its future is uncertain: the Trump administration’s 2026 budget proposal eliminates it, and the Department of Education did not open this year’s grant application. Advocates warn that without CCAMPIS, student parents are far more likely to drop out.
While Jamestown Community College doesn’t receive CCAMPIS funding, Gonzalez feels the presence of the program at other colleges is essential for student parents like him.
Renee Ryberg, senior research scientist at Child Trends, points out that one in five undergraduates are student parents. They earn grades comparable to their peers without children but are far less likely to graduate, she said.
“So for us, that really points to barriers outside of the classroom that student parents are facing on their path to graduation,” Ryberg said. “One of the largest barriers is child care and specifically accessible, affordable child care.”
In many states, that cost exceeds tuition. According to Child Care Aware of America, the average annual price of infant care at a center surpasses in-state university tuition in 41 states.
CCAMPIS is the only federal grant aimed at the nearly five million student parents in the country. But now, colleges are scrambling to find alternatives as grant money dries up.
At Kansas State University, the four-year CCAMPIS grant expired this year, and a request for extension was denied, said Berni Howe, director of the University’s Center for Child Development. The program had subsidized child care for 15–20 student parents annually.
“We ask for information about whether [student parents] would be able to continue their enrollment without the subsidy — a large portion of our parents report that their subsidy for their child care tuition is essential to them being successful,” Howe said.
The Center is now referring students to state and county programs, but each has its own eligibility barriers, leaving many parents without support.
According to The 19th, 13 colleges have also reportedly lost funding mid-grant, after the DOE argued that some programs were teaching toddlers about gender ideology and race — part of the administration’s broader effort to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
The DOE said in an email that its office wouldn’t respond to press requests until after the government shutdown ends.
Austin Community College, in its final year of funding, has been notified of continued support for now. The school receives roughly $1 million annually through CCAMPIS, providing child care scholarships to 50–55 students each year, according to Angelica Cancino de Sandoval, ACC’s director of basic needs and advocacy.
But the university is aware of the uncertainty around the future of CCAMPIS, and has a “backup plan,” Sandoval said. She added that ACC has institutional grants that it uses to support other students with child care scholarships. The university can also reach out to other existing donors if needed, she said.
Student parents make up 28% of ACC’s population, and more than 400 remain on the CCAMPIS waitlist.
“The completion rate is 82% for children who receive scholarships — 20 points above the average ACC student,” Sandoval noted. “They’re doing up and above the average ACC student who does not have a child care scholarship.”
In Congress, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) are pushing to reauthorize and expand CCAMPIS to $500 million. The bill, reintroduced last month, has strong backing from advocacy groups such as Today’s Students Coalition.
“This is a moment where we are seeing so many cost pressures on families,” Clark said. “We want students to be able to go back, get a degree, make that investment in themselves and be able to help them pay for child care.”
Tanya Ang, executive director of the Today’s Students Coalition, said while it’s going to be challenging for the bill to be discussed during the ongoing shutdown, she is hopeful due to the bipartisan interest in CCAMPIS.
“You have both sides of the aisle supporting CCAMPIS and wanting to see it get funded and so it could be one of the few things that might be able to be looked at and discussed during this Congress,” Ang said.
In the current Senate appropriations package, CCAMPIS funding has stayed at its current level. However, the House’s version of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill eliminates it entirely — aligning with the administration’s proposal to zero out the program in the 2026 budget.
That split means the program’s future will likely hinge on negotiations when both chambers reconcile their spending bills. Until then, colleges and advocates are caught in limbo, unsure whether their grants will continue.
Ryberg, the senior research scientist at Child Trends, said the fear among universities and student parents is only growing — especially the worry that funding could disappear mid-semester.
“The word I’m thinking of is discombobulating,” Ryberg said. “Students rely on childcare to be able to go to class, to be able to stay enrolled and so that shift you’re suddenly dealing with: ‘Wait, how am I going to go to class if I have a two-year-old with me? It’s a real question.”
Health & Science
Supreme Court hears case on faith-based pregnancy center’s free speech subpoena challenge
The Supreme Court weighed whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center can challenge a state subpoena in federal court, raising key questions about free speech and donor privacy.
read moreWarnings 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.”
Senate examines soaring health care costs, new policy paths ahead of tax credit expiration
WASHINGTON – The Senate Finance Committee debated proposals to address rising health care costs and alternatives to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies set to expire at the end of this year during a hearing on Wednesday.
The hearing comes in the aftermath of a prolonged government shutdown in which health care funding and tax-credit extensions emerged as central flashpoints. Roughly 93% of those who purchase insurance through the ACA marketplace received subsidies from the government in 2025.
If Congress does not pass legislation to extend the credits into 2026—a key demand of Democrats during the government shutdown—premium payments will more than double. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed on the broader health care affordability crisis plaguing Americans but differed on the appropriate path forward.
“Our health care system is broken,” Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said.
“Obamacare failed to make health care more affordable.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, proposed an alternative to ACA credits that closely aligns with President Donald Trump’s approach.
Under Cassidy’s proposal, eligible Americans would receive a pre-funded flexible spending account when opting into a bronze-level plan, which has the lowest premiums and highest out-of-pocket costs.
“Under the status quo my colleagues are pushing, 20% is going to the insurance company for overhead and for profit,” Cassidy said. “What we are proposing is that 100% goes to a patient-driven account which you can use for a physician or dentist or drugs.”
Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, said in written testimony that pandemic-era subsidies have fueled the “ACA’s premium spiral.” He proposed several affordability solutions, including tax-favored accounts that give consumers more control over their health care spending.
“Extending temporary emergency subsidies would deepen our broken system instead of fixing it,” Blase said.
Senate Democrats dismissed this approach and raised doubts about Republicans passing new and effective legislation by the end of the year.
According to Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), there is “no way” for Congress to build a proposal that will help those affected by rising ACA premiums before January. Wyden said spending accounts can be a “useful tool for very wealthy people” but not a “comprehensive health insurance opportunity” for all.
Wyden introduced Bartley Armitage, a retiree from Oregon, as a witness before the committee. Armitage’s testimony focused on the personal toll of rising insurance costs, especially the monthly premium hike from $443 to $2,224 in his family’s ACA plan next year.
“Nobody wants to pay that kind of bill for one month, and most can’t afford it,” Armitage said. “A bill like that is like having to pay for two houses.”
“I urge you to take action that keeps our health costs affordable before we’re hit with a massive bill this January,” he added.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) promised Democrats a vote on ACA subsidies by the end of the second week of December, a move that led some Democrats to break with the party and vote in favor of the funding bill to reopen the government last week.
In addition to passing the Senate, a Democrat-sponsored bill must pass the House and secure Trump’s signature before ACA enrollees make their first payment for next year. But, the president urged Congress not to “waste” time on negotiating the subsidies in a Truth Social post on Tuesday, stating that he would only support a plan that sends money “directly back to the people.”
Despite Trump’s comments, lawmakers present at Wednesday’s hearings supported continued bipartisan efforts.
“I think everybody on this committee is all in for trying to work together to find those bipartisan solutions to make health care affordable,” Crapo said.
Latest in Environment
Federal agencies to prioritize public lands development over local preferences that conflict with administration goals
The Trump administration has been rescinding President Joe Biden-era land policies and frustration communities affected by those decisions.
read moreCongress votes to overturn Central Yukon conservation management plan
WASHINGTON — On Oct. 9, the U.S. Senate passed a joint resolution of disapproval seeking to overturn the newly passed protection of federal land in the Central Yukon region of Alaska and open lands designated for conservation to the mining industry.
The resolution already passed the House and is now on its way to the president for his signature. Once President Donald Trump signs it into law, it will reopen the region to development by removing recently designated conservation areas and federal subsistence protections for Alaska Native tribes. These protections ensure animal, fish and plant populations are stable enough to support traditional ways of life.
“My first thought was just shame on our federal leaders,” said Cooper Freeman, Alaska director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “At the swipe of a pen, just ripping this plan up and throwing these incredible public lands and this really wonderful, exemplary plan — revving it up and throwing it to the wayside and putting that decades-plus-long collaborative effort into a trash can.”
“THEY ALL THINK THAT THEY CAN HAVE IT ALL”
The Central Yukon includes roughly 13.3 million acres of federally managed public lands in central and northern Alaska.
Although the Bureau of Land Management has the authority to develop resource management plans on its own, the joint resolution of disapproval allows Congress to issue oversight by overturning the BLM action.
Both Alaskan senators voted in favor of the joint resolution to remove these federal protections less than a year after they were established, allowing mining companies to once again apply for grants to develop federal land.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said in a news release that overturning the management plan would free public lands from federal “lock-up.”
“Despite objections from me, from Sen. Sullivan, the state of Alaska, many Alaska stakeholders, BLM kind of plowed ahead [with the November 2024 plan],” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said when she addressed the Senate before the vote on Oct. 9. “They finalized a plan that overwhelmingly prioritizes conservation but fails to reflect the principle of multiple use — multiple use that is required with our public lands.”
The Department of the Interior declined to comment on how the rollback would affect conservation in the area.
The resolution comes after Trump approved plans in the same region for the 211-mile industrial Ambler Road on Oct. 6 to “unlock Alaska’s mineral potential” by connecting mines with the Dalton Highway, which is the main throughway in the region.
BLM previously denied the Ambler Road Project a grant to build on federal land because its proposal to divide the habitat would endanger animal populations, the environment, ecotourism, and food and water security for over 60 Alaska Native villages.
Without federal land protections, it may soon be possible to turn acreage over to state management — allowing the state to authorize further development with less input from BLM.
Conservationists like Freeman say they are worried removing these protections will prioritize economic gains over the natural landscape and wildlife.
“They all think that they can have it all, that we can carve roads and put in oil and gas development and log old growth forests and mine, mine anywhere we want, and then it’ll all stay the same,” Freeman said. “That’s a complete fantasy. All that will do is turn Alaska into a wasteland and result in the loss of the subsistence culture that is in our amazing wildlife. It’s so much of what it means for Alaska to be Alaska.”
A YEARS-LONG FIGHT FOR CONSERVATION
For over a decade, federal workers collaborated with Alaska Native tribes, Alaskan residents, federal agencies, and state representatives to develop a federal strategy to manage public lands in the Central Yukon.
The years of work culminated in November 2024, when BLM finalized its rule.
The resulting Central Yukon Resource Management Plan designated 21 areas for conservation and research, totaling roughly 3,611,000 acres. On these lands, mining and development companies must submit a full plan for their projects and receive federal authorization before moving forward. BLM is legally required to consider environmental impacts in its review.
Mickey Stickman, the former first chief of the Nulato Tribe and Bering Sea-Interior Tribal Commission executive board member, participated in the discussions that led to the management plan and said he is shocked that it is now in jeopardy.
“We’re just living our culture,” Stickman said. “We’re just trying to live our lifestyle, and it’s just a way of life, but people don’t understand it, because there’s no money involved.”
The management plan designated caribou, Dall sheep, moose, and North American beaver as “priority species” for the region, and it set several protections for specific habitats. These management policies include mitigating risks to wildlife when authorizing certain activities in conservation areas and closing a few habitats to mineral leasing, development, or disposal.
It similarly designated several rivers as “areas of critical environmental concern” to protect fish spawning grounds and closed some floodplains to mineral disposals.
The management rule also protects habitat corridors, which enable species like caribou to safely migrate in search of food and breeding grounds. Freeman said these corridors are important for maintaining the natural Alaskan landscape and supporting key food sources for Indigenous peoples.
“Every time we bring a whole moose into the village, there’s no monetary value put on that moose,” Stickman said. “The state don’t care because they only want money.”
NOW, THESE FEDERAL PROTECTIONS WILL END
Freeman said Alaska is one of the last states with its wilderness untouched, which allows its residents and Indigenous peoples to live off the land as they have for generations.
However, this wild landscape is changing — and with it, the way of life for some of its inhabitants, particularly Alaska Native tribes.
Stickman said last year was the first time the Western Arctic Caribou Working Group imposed hunting quotas for Alaska Natives, limiting families to five caribou each year in order to protect the herd. Families once could hunt up to five caribou in one day, he said. He added that salmon catches have also yielded fewer fish than in previous years.
If signed into law, the resolution would further endanger food security, Stickman said. He emphasized that overturning the federal subsistence protections opens wildlife up to people who hunt for sport, and removing conservation protections endangers species that support Indigenous ways of life.
“I’m not going anywhere anytime soon, and that’s the difference between being Indigenous and being white,” Stickman said. “We like to live with our homelands forever.”
Published in conjunction with 
Dems urge rural development nominee to push back against Trump administration
WASHINGTON — Democrats urged a U.S. Department of Agriculture nominee to push back against Trump administration policies and stand up for rural communities at a confirmation hearing on Wednesday.
Glen Smith, President Donald Trump’s pick to be the next Under Secretary of Rural Development, largely responded to these entreaties with broad statements agreeing to look into Democrats’ concerns.
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) began his remarks by appealing to both his and Smith’s history growing up on small farms.
“I certainly hope that when you’re at the table, Mr. Smith, that you’ll stand up for the farmers and ranchers where we grew up, where you grew up,” Luján said. “My Republican colleagues are in the majority. They’re in charge. I get that. But in the end, farmers and ranchers shouldn’t get hurt arbitrarily because someone just had a whim about something.”
Rural communities have been increasingly affected by Trump administration policies, including medicare rollbacks, spending cuts and tariffs, which committee Democrats appeared to note.
Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) focused on workforce reduction in the rural development office in his state, which he described as “overboard.”
Welch said that Smith appeared “sympathetic” to these issues, yet worried about how Smith would negotiate situations where Trump’s policy clashed with farmers’ interests.
“Maybe I’m just putting you on notice,” Welch said.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) concentrated on frozen funds, pointing to already awarded energy projects that aren’t being upheld. Klobuchar wanted a commitment that Smith would look into her concerns.
Smith responded to both of these questions with a vague promise to investigate Democrats’ concerns.
“We should all look together,” he said to Klobuchar.
The Trump administration has been under fire for its agricultural policy and its outsized impact on rural communities, as hundreds of thousands of American soybean farmers suffer due to the global trade war. In response to tariffs levied by Trump, China, previously a large buyer of American soybeans, has imposed retaliatory tariffs, effectively halting purchases for extended periods of time.
Indeed, China has now shifted to alternative markets like Brazil and Argentina to purchase soy beans.
After negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, Trump announced on social media that Jinping had authorized his country to begin purchasing “massive amounts” of soybeans, sorghum and other farm products. However, the Chinese government has made no public commitment to uphold this agreement, and the deal appears to be a return to the status quo.
Still, Trump’s agricultural nominees continue to express largely uninhibited support for the president.
On Wednesday, Smith said that he had ideas “in carrying out the goals of the Trump administration in serving rural America.”
And, at a confirmation hearing on Oct. 29, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Julie Callahan, Trump’s nominee to serve as chief agricultural negotiator, about Trump’s trade deal with Argentina and how Callahan will serve the interests of U.S. farmers.
Callahan repeatedly refused to answer questions relating to the harm caused to soybean farmers by the Trump administration’s bailout of Argentina. She insisted that China was at fault.
“You can’t even acknowledge that our American soybean farmers are having trouble right now?” Warren asked. “If you can’t answer that question, I don’t see how you can represent American soybean farmers.”
Latest in National Security
Lawmakers, companies debate effective solutions for major cyberattacks
A year after the Salt Typhoon cyberattack linked to the Chinese government, lawmakers and experts are at odds over how to prevent the next breach.
read moreHouse committee warns export control loopholes are accelerating China’s chipmaking
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers scrutinized U.S. export controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment amid growing concern that loopholes are allowing China to advance its chipmaking capabilities faster than intended.
“America must close these loopholes to stop the Chinese Communist Party from leveraging their technology for its military modernization efforts and pursuit of technological dominance,” Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) said in his opening statement at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Witnesses warned that gaps in the system — from insufficient allied controls to weak enforcement and staffing shortages at the Bureau of Industry and Security — are hindering U.S. efforts to enforce chip export rules, while China continues expanding its semiconductor manufacturing capabilities.
Dean Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, said that while the U.S. has successfully restricted China’s access to the most cutting-edge chips, Beijing continues to acquire the equipment needed to manufacture them — including deep ultraviolet (DUV) immersion lithography machines, which create intricate layers of the microchip circuit and are fundamental to the process.
He noted that while the U.S. imposes strong export controls on domestically made equipment, it has failed to align controls with international allies whose companies continue to export to China, including Dutch manufacturer ASML, the world’s largest supplier of DUV immersion lithography machines.
“We have set on the path of denying China access to the most sophisticated machines in the world … but we have failed to deny access to something perhaps even more important: the machines that make the machines,” Ball said.
The result, Ball said, is the “worst of both worlds,” as American firms lose revenue while China continues to gain technological ground.
Chris McGuire, senior fellow for China and Emerging Technologies at the Council on Foreign Relations, stressed the need for the U.S. to impose broad restrictions on the export of all semiconductor manufacturing equipment capable of advanced production to China.
He also recommended expanding extraterritorial controls to the 33 allied countries currently exempt, including the Netherlands and Japan. This would apply the foreign-produced direct product rule, which restricts exports of foreign-made products that contain U.S. technology or are produced using U.S. equipment, to these nations.
“These controls have proven effective and would be nearly impossible for any company to design around, given ubiquity of U.S. technology in the semiconductor supply chain,” McGuire said.
Beyond the technology itself, lawmakers also questioned whether the United States has the capacity to enforce its own export rules.
Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas) pressed witnesses on recent personnel turnover at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, the agency responsible for export licenses and enforcement compliance. She expressed concern that the changes have left the bureau under-resourced at a moment when semiconductor export controls are becoming increasingly complex.
Kevin Wolf, a former Commerce official, said the staffing gaps reflect broader federal restructuring and layoffs under the administration. He encouraged committee members to find ways to staff BIS with more subject matter experts, Mandarin speakers, people with intelligence experience and more.
“I’m very concerned about the talent drain because we can have all the policies in the world but if we don’t have the talent that’s smart enough to figure out how to enforce them and how to enact them then we’re not going to get very far,” Johnson said.
In her remarks, Ranking Member Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) argued that Trump has shifted export controls from a national security tool to a negotiating tool, citing the U.S.–China trade war and retaliation from Beijing on rare earth exports. She warned that new restrictions could now be seen abroad as a restart of the trade war rather than a security measure.
Kamlager-Dove also criticized Trump’s recently announced agreement with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which includes the sale of 70,000 AI chips, suggesting it could put U.S. national security at risk.
“Our national security should never be negotiable and it should also never be for sale,” she said.
Myanmar in crisis: Lawmakers discuss China’s role, sanctions and junta-led elections
WASHINGTON — Nearly five years after Myanmar’s military coup, the country remains in turmoil, with continued persecution of Rohingya Muslims, expanding scam centers targeting international victims and deepening Chinese influence. At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers questioned witnesses on how Washington should engage with the country ahead of junta-run December elections widely seen as illegitimate.
“(Myanmar’s) humanitarian catastrophe, its strategic importance in Southeast Asia and the ongoing war’s harmful effects on everyday Americans — all demand a thorough reevaluation of the United States policy,” Committee Chair U.S. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) said in her opening statement.
Witnesses included Kelley Currie, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Indo-Pacific Security Initiative and former Ambassador-at-Large for global women’s issues. Currie repeatedly stressed China’s vested interest in supporting the Myanmar military in the ongoing conflict, citing its supply of weapons to the junta, cutting off resources to ethnic resistance groups and mining of the country’s rare-earth minerals.
Currie added that Chinese transnational criminal organizations form the backbone of scam centers based in Myanmar — rapidly growing, multibillion-dollar criminal networks that traffic people and defraud victims, including many in the U.S..
“There are a number of intersecting conflict economics that are fueling this war and the main beneficiary of these conflict economics and the war itself is not even the military junta — it’s the People’s Republic of China,” Currie said.
Currie urged placing targeted sanctions on the military junta, noting the U.S. rolled back several in July for “no apparent reason,” including those on a key arms dealer — a move sharply criticized by U.N. experts.
Steve Ross, senior fellow at the Stimson Center, underscored that the U.S. must refuse to recognize the results of the upcoming elections, arguing the outcome is predetermined after the junta dissolved the main political opposition parties in 2023.
“These so-called elections will not be free, fair, or inclusive,” Ross said. “Rather they are intended to garner international recognition for the regime in hopes that this will translate into political, financial and military support that enables it to consolidate control.”
Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.) raised the topic of humanitarian aid, specifically the Trump administration’s decision to close USAID earlier this year, thus severely impacting assistance to Myanmar.
“Civilians are dying at the hands of (the Myanmar) military junta, but also from malnutrition and lack of medical care,” Amo said.
Rohingya refugee and activist Lucky Karim echoed Amo’s sentiments about the importance of U.S. aid to Myanmar, adding that it encourages other countries to contribute. She noted that after the closure of USAID, several other countries including the U.K. and Germany have also cut aid to Myanmar.
“The USAID cuts largely and more directly and personally have impacted the community members in the camps including nutrition, learning centers and other programs that are used to provide protections,” Karim said.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Penn.) urged the committee members to focus on solutions that won’t “encumber taxpayers.” In response, Currie suggested moving frozen Myanmar foreign exchange reserves to a managing account and using the interest to support humanitarian and governance assistance, similar to how interest from frozen Russian assets is being used to support Ukraine.
Currie also suggested pushing countries like Thailand and Bangladesh, which host large Myanmar refugee populations, to authorize refugees to work, in an effort to make the communities more self-sustaining.
“Peace will only come to (Myanmar) when the people of that country are allowed to drive their own future without the interference of their big neighbor China and without the military creating the enabling environment for conflict,” Currie said.
Latest in Living
Federal workers’ holiday plans thwarted as government shutdown enters fourth week
“People will be getting fewer Christmas cookies this year.”
read moreBipartisan housing affordability and availability package awaits House amid shutdown
WASHINGTON – As the federal government enters its second-longest shutdown in the nation’s history this week, the House of Representatives faces a growing workload when it is brought back in session — including consideration of the Senate-approved “ROAD to Housing Act,” a bipartisan package hailed as the most significant housing reform in a decade.
The Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act of 2025 draws from 27 previously introduced bills focused on boosting the supply of affordable housing. After clearing committee with unanimous support, the measure was folded into the Senate’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026, which passed on Oct. 9.
Discussion of housing reform continued in a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs subcommittee hearing on Tuesday.
“Home ownership remains a foundational element to the American dream but, as we can see, is out of reach for so many,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) said. “This is not a partisan issue. This affects families in Alabama and Minnesota and in every state across our great nation.”
Housing policy is usually left to states and localities, but because the affordability crisis is a national problem, it requires a national response, said Dennis Shea of the Bipartisan Policy Center. That means cooperation between federal, state and local governments as well as the private sector, he added.
The Act uses a few levers — a mix of “carrots” and “sticks” — to push state and local governments toward pro-housing policies, Shea said.
For example, it includes an Innovation Fund to encourage communities to expand housing through streamlined permitting, density bonuses and zoning changes. Another provision ties Community Development Block Grants in high-cost areas to housing production, with the risk that communities not producing housing would lose funds, according to the text of the bill.
“Solving the housing shortage is not about more bureaucracy. It’s not about spending more and more government subsidies. It’s about unleashing locally-driven solutions and cutting red tape while empowering builders and incentivizing private sector investment,” Britt said.
The Senate subcommittee elevated local solutions like weather-resistant homes in coastal Alabama and modular construction in Minnesota that have already proven cost effective.
“Building stronger, more resilient homes reduces the damage during disasters, fewer insurance claims and lower premium costs,” said Lars Powell, executive director of the Center for Risk and Insurance Research.
The witnesses stressed that the ROAD to Housing Act would enable many more communities to follow suit.
Although the Act already passed the Senate two weeks ago, Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) told Medill News Service that the hearing keeps the ball rolling. As the legislation still needs to be reviewed by the House, the Senate hopes it remains in public focus.
The House passed its version of the NDAA without the housing provisions in September, so the two chambers will have to reconcile the differences once Speaker Mike Johnson brings the House back in session.
Shea said attaching the ROAD to Housing Act to a “must-pass” bill like the NDAA was strategic because Congress often aims to pass the defense bill by Thanksgiving. If the shutdown drags on and the House skips markups due to time constraints, he added, it’s possible that lawmakers pass the Senate version of the NDAA, leaving the ROAD to Housing Act intact.
“I know that this is a step in the right direction. We were able to pass it off at the Senate floor,” Smith said. “We need to continue to work to move that and other housing reforms forward so that we can fulfill the hope in this country — the fundamental freedom that people want to be able to own their own home.”
Supreme Court hears arguments over Mexico’s suit against U.S. gunmakers
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday about whether U.S. gun manufacturers can be held accountable for the production and sale of firearms and the proximate harm their products cause in Mexico by contributing to drug cartel violence.
In 2021, the Mexican government filed a lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, claiming they had aided and abetted illegal gun sales to traffickers for use by Mexican cartels. The suit alleged firearms companies engaged in business practices for decades that created a supply of weapons smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Mexican government is asking for $10 billion in damages in addition to “injunctive relief,” which would impose new gun control measures in the U.S.
A federal district court in Massachusetts dismissed the case under Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which bars lawsuits against firearms companies based on criminals misusing their products.
The U.S. Court of Appeals First Circuit reversed the decision, ruling that PLCAA does not apply in this case since Mexico has claimed gun manufacturers’ business practices have aided and abetted firearms trafficking to cartels, which has ultimately harmed the Mexican government.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has considered the legality of PLCAA since it was enacted with bipartisan support in 2005.
Raymond M. Sarola, of counsel at Cohen Milstein, filed an amicus brief in support of Mexico on behalf of law enforcement officers across the country.
If the court rules in favor of the Mexican government, Sarola said, “Hopefully litigation like this would cause an industry to take affirmative steps when it is aware that the conduct that it is engaged in is having these terrible consequences.”
During oral arguments, justices appeared skeptical of both sides.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Noel Francisco, the lawyer arguing on behalf of the gun companies, on how the issue of proximate cause was framed within the context of the case.
“You haven’t sued any of the retailers that were the most proximate cause of the harm. And you haven’t identified them that I can tell in the complaint.”
In an amicus brief supporting the petitioners Smith and Wesson Brands, David Tryon, the Director of Litigation at The Buckeye Institute, argued that a ruling in favor of Mexico could potentially cripple American gun manufacturers, which he believes encroaches on the Second Amendment.
“This is a Second Amendment case because they are very clear, because that law was passed to protect the Second Amendment, and this is designed to invade that law and to attack the firearms industry and basically bankrupt the firearms industry, because they’re asking for billions and billions of dollars in damages.”
When hearing arguments in Mexico’s favor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed her concern about PLCAA and protecting Congress’s prerogative to regulate the firearms industry.
“All of the things that you ask for in this lawsuit would amount to different kinds of regulatory constraints that I’m thinking Congress didn’t want the courts to be the ones to impose.”
Timothy Lytton, a Regents’ Professor and Professor of Law at Georgia State University who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Professors of Tort Law, Statutory Interpretation, and Firearms Regulation in support of neither party, emphasized the impact that a ruling in favor of Smith and Wesson could have on the legitimacy of PLCAA.
“If the court holds in favor of Smith and Wesson’s argument with regard to proximate cause, it will eliminate any possibility of liability for injury arising out of criminal misuse of a weapon. That would be a radical expansion of what Congress intended when it passed the federal immunity shield.”
The court is expected to reach its decision in summer 2025.
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
FROM AIR TRAVEL TO FOOD ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES, SHUTDOWN AFTEREFFECTS LINGER
by Kally Proctor | December 4, 2025 | Featured, Politics | 0 Comments
Over the course of what ended up being the longest shutdown in U.S. history, many industries were harmed in ways that they are still recovering from.
Photo Essay: Nevada congressional delegation hosts Capitol Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony
by Gabe Hawkins | December 4, 2025 | Featured, Politics | 0 Comments
Members of the Nevada congressional delegation participated in an annual tree lighting ceremony.
Federal agencies to prioritize public lands development over local preferences that conflict with administration goals
by Lexi Newsom | December 3, 2025 | Environment, Featured | 0 Comments
The Trump administration has been rescinding President Joe Biden-era land policies and frustration communities affected by those decisions.
Supreme Court Weighs Role of Federal Courts in Asylum Determinations
by Naomi Taxay | December 2, 2025 | Featured, Immigration | 0 Comments
The justices heard arguments in a case that could determine whether federal courts may independently review asylum seekers’ claims of persecution or must defer to immigration officials.
Lawmakers, companies debate effective solutions for major cyberattacks
by Katarzyna Nguyen | December 2, 2025 | Featured, National Security | 0 Comments
A year after the Salt Typhoon cyberattack linked to the Chinese government, lawmakers and experts are at odds over how to prevent the next breach.