Politics
Supreme Court weighs pipeline deadline fight with stakes far beyond the Straits of Mackinac
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Feb. 24, determining procedural regulations for removing the procedural case to a federal court.
read more
Senate Dems. bash former DHS deputy secretary Troy Edgar at nomination hearing to be ambassador to El Salvador
Troy Edgar’s nomination is part of major shifts in the DHS leadership structure, as Trump announced on Truth Social that he was firing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem just hours after Edgar’s nomination hearing.
read more
Senate candidate interrupts Joint Force meeting to criticize Israel
In the hearing, high-ranking military witnesses were questioned on the extent of the Iran war and the military’s readiness for it.
read more
IRS chief touts bigger refunds as lawmakers grill him on privacy violations
IRS CEO Frank Bisignano testified before Congress as lawmakers criticized him for digitalization, tax gap and privacy violations.
read more
Lawmakers warn China is exploiting Russia’s war to expand influence in Europe
WASHINGTON –– Lawmakers warned Wednesday that China has quietly expanded its political and economic influence across Europe while the continent remained focused on countering Russia’s war in Ukraine. “China and Russia share a vision for the world where the strong do...
read moreSupreme Court weighs freight broker liability in negligent hiring case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered whether the brokers who connect shippers with truck companies can be held liable for irresponsible drivers.
The case, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, stems from a 2017 incident in which Shawn Montgomery, the petitioner, suffered significant injuries after a tractor-trailer hit his parked truck on the side of an Illinois highway.
A key part of the case is the interpretation of part of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. It prevents state laws “related to a price, route, or service” of trucking companies or brokers that connect them to shippers.
However, the statute also provides an exception, stating that it will “not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.”
The outcome could redefine liability standards for freight brokers and impact the broader transportation industry and interstate commerce landscape.
The driver of the tractor-trailer, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, had been involved in a crash months earlier but was still employed by Caribe Transport II, an interstate trucking company. Freight broker C.H. Robinson recruited Caribe II to deliver a cross-country shipment. Montgomery sued the broker for negligent hiring under Illinois state laws.
During the arguments, the two sides disagreed about whether the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” includes brokers.
“We do believe that ‘with respect to motor vehicles’ is the crucial question here,” Theodore Boutrous Jr., Caribe II’s counsel, said. He argued Congress did not intend for brokers to be included.
The attorney for the U.S. agreed the two different sections of the law being discussed should, in context, be taken altogether to mean that brokers are not included in the realm of “motor vehicles.”
“Paragraph one uses the phrase ‘with respect to the transportation of property,’ (and) paragraph two (says) ‘with respect to motor vehicles,’” said Sopan Joshi, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. “That seems like a conscious choice that Congress made to parallel the language but change the noun to a much narrower noun.”
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned Paul Clement, Montgomery’s counsel, on how brokers would address safety concerns if the Court were to rule in favor of Montgomery and say that brokers are liable for consequences of negligent hiring.
For instance, Kavanaugh suggested drivers should be proficient in English to ensure safety. In April 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to enforce English-language requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers.
“If you’re hiring drivers who can’t read the signs, that seems like a safety issue,” Kavanaugh said.
Clement said brokers could work with larger trucking companies with deeper pockets and check that they have adequate programs in place to test drivers for drug use, prior accidents and other potential concerns.
“One of the reasons, I think, that you do want (brokers) to have some duty of care in these circumstances is this is a margin business,” Clement said. “If they don’t have any sort of incentive to internalize any of the cost of not asking the question, they really have no good reason to ask the question. They want the cheapest carrier.”
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked the government’s attorney, Joshi, to explain why he thought Congress did not think brokers should share responsibility for safety given the language in the 1994 law.
“The problem, I think, with the argument in the way that you’ve set it up is that you are assuming away any responsibility that a broker might have for safety,” Jackson said.
Joshi argued that Congress did not intend for brokers to have responsibility regarding safety and could have worded the law differently if it did.
“Congress has an entire chapter, several chapters, of the U.S. Code in Title 49 that deal with safety addressing carriers, safety of motor vehicles, driver qualifications, and they’re all addressed at carriers,” Joshi said. “Not a single one is addressed at brokers.”
Joshi acknowledged that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is “understaffed,” “overworked” and unable to review all of the federally registered carriers. However, he said Congress has provided ways of bringing consequences against carriers who violate federal requirements and regulations.
In his closing rebuttal, Clement told the court that 94% of registered carriers on the road do not have meaningful federal safety inspections, a number derived from 2021 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data.
He said state tort law could provide a “backstop to the federal system.”
“This case doesn’t have to be that hard. The thing that triggers state tort liability is an 80,000-pound motor vehicle. That’s what devastatingly injured my client,” Clement said.
The Court is expected to have a ruling by the summer.
Published in conjunction with 
Senators express support, criticism of future military action in Iran
WASHINGTON — Senators seemed split along party lines over future military action in the Middle East after a classified intelligence briefing on Tuesday afternoon. Democrats called for increased clarity on the objectives and justifications for attacks, while Republicans supported the Trump administration’s current plan.
The conflicting reactions came as both the House and the Senate are scheduled to vote on a war powers resolution on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. If passed, the resolution would limit further military actions in Iran without congressional approval.
Most Republicans criticized the measure and said that Congress should not take authority away from the president.
“We don’t need 535 commander in chiefs,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday. “The commander in chief is the president of the United States and he has a duty in Article Two to be able to protect American interests and he is initiating that and doing that with great authority and great effect.”
Democrats criticized the president for striking without congressional approval.
The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but dictates that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces.
“Nobody gets to hide and give the President an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. said in regards to the war powers resolution. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”
President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran early Saturday morning. As of Wednesday morning, over 1000 people, including six U.S. service members, have been killed in the conflict, reported CBS News. Trump and members of his administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offered conflicting justifications for the war and different estimates for how the war may last.
Democrats expressed worry over the lack of clarity from the Trump administration.
“They have shifting goals, different goals all the time, different answers every day,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday. “And I’m truly worried about the mission. There’s no set plan being here day after day. ‘We’re going to do this, this, this and this,’ and these are the reasons why you end up with an endless war.”
Schumer added that the answers given during Tuesday’s intelligence briefing were “unsatisfying.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer’s concerns about the unclear objectives.
“I am more fearful than ever after that briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground and that troops in the United States may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have,” said Blumenthal. “But I also am no more clear on what priorities are going to be of the administration going forward, whether it is destroying the nuclear capacity of the missiles or regime change or stopping terrorist activities.”
Blumenthal added that the “administration owes it” to the American people to release information about the Iran war.
Republicans came out of Tuesday’s briefing praising the administration and its objectives.
“They want to make sure that the ability for them to strike us anywhere at any time is gone,” said Mullin. “No way they’ll be able to make a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium again. To take out their navy so they can’t disrupt commerce in the shipping lanes, and to take out their ability to restock and rebuild their missiles and drones. That’s the objective here.”
Mullin added that the U.S is “going to eliminate the threat that’s been threatening us for 47 years” which “no other president was willing to stand up against Iran and eliminate it like President Trump.”
Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., expressed similar confidence in U.S. military powers.
“Who’s going to win a war between the Iranian regime and the United States? We are. We’re going to win this conflict,” Graham said.
House Agriculture Committee weighs GOP proposal for the next farm bill
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee debated a sweeping proposal to reshape U.S. agricultural policy late on Tuesday as Republicans advanced the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, a bill intended to serve as the House framework for the next farm bill.
The full committee markup began at 6 p.m. and stretched until nearly midnight before resuming Wednesday at 8 a.m., with lawmakers clashing over agricultural subsidies, conservation programs and food assistance.
“This so-called farm bill is problematic because it screws over a lot of poor people in this country,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during the markup debate. “We have millions and millions of people in this country, the richest country in the history of the world, who are hungry.”
The debate carried broad national implications because the farm bill governs major parts of U.S. agricultural and nutrition policy. Congress typically renews the legislation every five years, combining funding for farmers with nutrition assistance programs that support millions of Americans. The current farm bill, passed in 2018, has been extended multiple times since expiring in 2023.
One of the largest programs affected is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helped about 41.7 million Americans afford food in May 2025, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center based on federal data.
According to a summary released by the House Agriculture Committee, the new farm bill will expand producers’ access to credit, promote precision agriculture, and enhance conservation programs for working lands. Republicans defended the proposal as a necessary update to agricultural policy, arguing it reflects economic pressures facing farmers.
“The policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026,” said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa. “An update to the farm bill is long overdue.”
Democrats countered that the legislation fails to protect nutrition programs. Instead, they pushed the Farm and Family Relief Act, a bill Democrats introduced in January that proposes $56 billion to help farmers and fund SNAP.
“We could move forward with the Farm and Family Relief Act,” said Ranking Member Angie Craig, D-Minn. “Sadly, Republicans seem determined to continue down the partisan path.”
Republicans pushed back on that criticism. Rep. Brad Finstad, R-Minn., argued the legislation includes provisions originally introduced by Democratic lawmakers. Finstad condemned the posture of Democrats.
“This is political theater,” he said.
Some lawmakers said the proposal still faces obstacles in building the bipartisan coalition that historically helps farm bills pass Congress.
Rep. John W. Mannion, D-N.Y., told Medill News Service that major policy disagreements remain.
“We all recognize farmers’ importance,” Mannion said. “But historically farm bills succeed because they bring everyone together, and this proposal does not get us there yet.”
Agricultural industry groups have welcomed parts of the proposal. According to the USA Rice Federation, the legislation could help provide long-term certainty for agricultural producers and maintain U.S. commodities as a core component of international food assistance programs.
The current debate follows a similar legislative effort in 2024, when the committee held a full markup of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. Committee leaders at the time described that proposal as the result of extensive feedback from agricultural stakeholders and lawmakers. However, Congress struggled to finalize the proposal, extending the 2018 version while negotiations continue.
As the markup continues, lawmakers are expected to consider additional amendments before the committee votes on whether to send the bill to the House floor.
Even if the House advances its version, lawmakers would still need to negotiate with the Senate before Congress can finalize the next farm bill.
In Photos: ‘Jeffrey Epstein Walk of Shame’ appears in public park near White House
WASHINGTON — A “Jeffrey Epstein Walk of Shame” was installed last weekend in Farragut Square, a public park close to the White House, naming and shaming public figures associated with the late child sex offender and trafficker.
The display comes amid intense scrutiny of the Epstein files, following the Department of Justice’s release of more than 3 million pages on Jan. 30 detailing the activities of Epstein and his network of associates.
Sidewalk stickers posted at each corner of the park welcomed commuters and visitors to the exhibition. The installation, inspired by the Hollywood Walk of Fame, displayed stickers shaped like stars featuring prominent politicians, billionaires and celebrities tied to Epstein.
Each star carried a QR code that directed visitors to specific entries in the Epstein files or news articles detailing their connection to him. Instead of an emblem representing their field of work, the center of each star depicted Epstein’s headshot.
While being named in the Epstein files does not necessarily imply wrongdoing, it could suggest involvement in or enabling Epstein’s crimes. Except for Ghislaine Maxwell, none of Epstein’s friends or associates have been criminally prosecuted in the United States, fueling outrage over the lack of accountability.
It remains unclear who created the installation and when it will be removed.
A “Jeffrey Epstein Walk of Shame” appeared in Farragut Square on March 1, 2026, naming prominent public figures with ties to the late sex trafficker. (David Sun/MNS)
One visitor lingers before former Barclays CEO Jes Staley’s star. These stars around the park included celebrities, industry executives and politicians. (David Sun/MNS)
One passerby scans the QR code on New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch’s star. Tisch appears in the Epstein Files more than 440 times. (David Sun/MNS)
One passerby scans the QR code on former Harvard University President Larry Summers’s star. Summers recently resigned from teaching at Harvard after the Epstein Files detailed his close relationship with the sex offender. (David Sun/MNS)
Elon Musk’s star is the only one whose sticker has been torn off, though the QR code remains intact. (David Sun/MNS)
One visitor looks down at former President Bill Clinton’s star. Clinton testified before Congress on Feb. 27 about his connections to Epstein. (David Sun/MNS)
A passerby photographs his two dogs beside the “Jeffrey Epstein Walk of Shame” sign during an afternoon walk. (David Sun/MNS)
Supreme Court justices seem skeptical about banning guns for marijuana users
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in United States v. Hemani, and a majority of the justices appeared deeply skeptical that the federal government should prosecute a Texas man for owning a gun, simply because he regularly used marijuana.
The case has forced the nation’s highest court to grapple with a constitutional puzzle. If James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day and was not considered a “habitual drunkard,” what does that say about Ali Danial Hemani, who smokes marijuana every other day? Justice Neil Gorsuch posed that question directly to the federal government’s attorney, but nobody in the courtroom had a clean answer.
In 2022, FBI agents investigating the Hemani family’s alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps searched his Denton County home and found a legally purchased Glock 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Hemani told agents he used marijuana almost every other day.
He was not charged with terrorism. He was not charged with drug dealing. But he was charged under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), a provision of the 1968 Gun Control Act that makes it a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm.
The government’s case rests on an analogy to founding-era laws against “habitual drunkards.” Gorsuch was unpersuaded. “John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he only had three or four glasses of wine a night,” he told Sarah Harris, the principal deputy solicitor general. “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?” The only thing the record shows about Hemani, Gorsuch noted, is that he used marijuana roughly every other day, with no specifics on quantity.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed further, asking whether someone who takes their spouse’s sleeping medicine Ambien without a prescription would also lose their right to have a gun. “It’s not the drug itself that’s causing the dangerousness. If my husband has a prescription and I don’t, what is it about Ambien that would make one of us more likely to be dangerous? It’s not. It’s the lawfulness.” She pressed the same logic onto Adderall, a medication for ADHD, Robitussin, a cough syrup, and testosterone. “None of those drugs strike me as drugs for which it is obvious that a risk of violence would ensue,” she added.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson identified a deeper structural problem. The 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen protected the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Under that case, she argued, a modern legislature must follow founding-era judgments about dangerousness. It cannot substitute its own.
“You have to have a policy judgment at the founding that matches the policy judgment today,” she said. “And if we don’t see that, then the fact that today’s Congress thinks that person is dangerous is irrelevant.”
Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, called Jackson’s interpretation of Bruen the most consequential moment of the oral argument.
“We’re operating in this legal fiction where we’re forced to ask whether Congress considered dangerousness determinations in relation to historical analogs when we know that’s not what Congress did,” she said. “You’re asking the government to go back and do homework for an assignment that was due 50 years ago.”
Gorsuch also pressed Harris on why the administration chose this case to test the principle while simultaneously moving to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, from Schedule I to Schedule III.
“It’s an odd case to have chosen,” he said. Matthew Cavedon of the Cato Institute, who authored an amicus brief for Hemani, noted the contradiction:
“The chaos is even within the administration, it appears, about how dangerous marijuana is,” he said. “On one hand, it has approved medical uses… On the other hand, it’s this thing that, by golly, if you’re doing it, you’re so dangerous you can’t be trusted with a gun.”
Carissa Hessick, a criminal law professor at the University of North Carolina, compared the case to the federal government charging Al Capone for tax evasion prosecution. Prosecutors often pursue the case they believe they can win.
“As long as we think these are appropriate penalties for the crimes people are actually being convicted of, as opposed to the ones we just suspect them of committing, then we should be okay with it,” she said.
The case has drawn an unusual alignment of advocacy groups. The NRA, ACLU, Gun Owners of America, and Cato all filed briefs for Hemani. Everytown, the Brady Center, and 19 states, including California and Illinois, backed the Trump administration.
“This puts the decriminalization crowd and the gun violence prevention folks on opposite sides, and those two camps are often comprised of a lot of the same people,” Lawrence said.
The ruling will land amid significant legal uncertainty about marijuana. The federal government is moving to lessen penalties for marijuana, while 40 states have some form of legalization, and hundreds of lower-court challenges to the federal statute that makes it a felony to illegally use drugs while possessing a gun.
Hemani could face a maximum of 15 years if convicted. The Supreme Court was expected to rule by summer.
Supreme Court considers unconstitutional exceptions when defendants waive their right to appeal
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on what limitations there should be for defendants who waived their right to appeal if their sentence would otherwise be deemed illegal.
Courts generally uphold two exceptions to appellate waivers: either the defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel or the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The outcome of Hunter v. U.S. will determine if there will be more flexibility for defendants to appeal unreasonable sentences even if they had previously waived that right.
Munson P. Hunter III pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting wire fraud in 2024 and was sentenced to more than four years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. As part of the deal, Hunter waived his right to appeal the sentence, which is extremely common – according to the Suarez Law Firm, appeal waivers are “nearly universal” in plea deals.
During sentencing, the court ordered Hunter to take mental health medication while in supervised release. Hunter objected to this mandate, but the court rejected his arguments. The judge then misinformed Hunter that he could appeal his sentence.
In his appeal, Hunter argued that the court’s mandate for him to take mental health medication while on supervised release violated his due process rights. The district court ruled against Hunter and said the written waiver overrode the judge’s spoken statements in court.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern over treating plea agreements like a typical binding contract. He pressed both counsels on what wording could be used to allow for more flexibility, but the court did not land on a catch-all term for unreasonable sentencing.
“Plea agreements have some attributes of a contract, but they’re not, they’re not like ordinary contracts,” Roberts said. “Imposing the entire law of contracts here seems to me rather open-ended.”
Hunter’s counsel Lisa Blatt argued that there needs to be more exceptions to appeal waivers if defendants receive unconstitutional sentences.
“It is inconceivable and hypocritical and embarrassing to say a criminal defendant has no contract defense at least when the government is seeking to enforce the contract,” Blatt said.
Ruling in Hunter’s favor could change how criminal cases conclude, which is usually final since most defendants entering a guilty plea have waived their right to contest the sentence.
Waiving one’s right to appeal saves the government time and litigation costs, since they do not have to entertain the possibility that a defendant’s case will return to the court.
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns to Department of Justice lawyer Zoe Jacoby that defendants may face prejudice from judges and receive sentences influenced by racism or sexism.
Gorsuch also said the case is a public policy issue because contractual agreements should not change the fundamental court system. He posed a hypothetical to Jacoby that a court of orangutans could issue a sentence and under the government’s strict interpretation of appellate waivers, the defendant would not be able to take action.
“It’s a district court who says, I’m going to let an orangutan pick a sentence out of a hat,” Gorsuch said. “And you would say no, no right to appeal that.”
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised the issue of the government’s stake in plea deals. She argued that the Sentence Reforming Act of 1984 is proof that appeals incentivize courts to follow the law and impose reasonable sentences.
Waiving one’s right to appeal saves the government time and litigation costs, since they do not have to entertain the possibility that a defendant’s case will return to the court. Jackson said if the outcome of Hunter v. U.S. sides with the government, it could pose issues in public policy.
“We have a congressional policy that, in fact, revamps the entire sentencing system to allow for appeals,” she said. “To suggest that an appeal waiver is not against public policy, I think, runs up against all of that.”
Director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice Matthew Cavedon published an amicus brief in support of Hunter, and also challenged the notion that this case should fall under contract law.
Cavedon said a contract is defined as two consenting parties acting in their best interests, while a plea bargain is a surrender from one party that cannot walk away.
“It’s really hard to say that most plea bargains can qualify as a genuine contract in the first place,” Cavedon said. “That said, even contracting law would not put up with the sort of wide open uncertainty that’s reflected in a plea like the one that was at issue today.”
After hearing Tuesday’s oral arguments, Cavedon said he is confident that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Hunter and give more flexibility with appeal waivers.
“It’s a good sign that the court certainly wasn’t willing to indulge the government’s argument here that an appellate waiver prevents all abuses,” he said. “From there to a ruling in favor of Mr. Hunter is a pretty short distance.”
A decision on the case will be released by the end of the court’s term in the summer.
Published in conjunction with
Dems boycott SOTU at ‘People’s’ State of the Union Address
WASHINGTON – In freezing temperatures, lawmakers, activists, and protesters gathered on the National Mall to oppose the president’s State of the Union address by holding their own “People’s” State of the Union on Tuesday night.
“I’m not at the State of the Union because there, you won’t hear about the State of the Union,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “You’ll hear lies.”
More than 80 Democratic lawmakers chose to boycott the State of the Union this year to protest President Trump’s initiatives and what they expected his speech would contain. While some simply stayed home, several spoke on the National Mall. The boycott comes amid a partial government shutdown brought about by the Democrats’ refusal to fund the Department of Homeland Security without imposing restrictions on ICE.
The event was hosted by independent journalists Joy Reid and Katie Phang, both of whom regularly criticize the president on their podcasts.
Joy Reid, host of the Joy Reid show, co-hosted the event with Katie Phang of the Katie Phang Show. (Isabel Papp/MNS)
“We are going to hear about the state of our union from the people who are being impacted by policies taking place at the hands of someone who has demonstrated no love for the Constitution,” Reid said at the start of the night.
Lawmakers gave their remarks and presented their guests, who ranged from political activists to ordinary Americans who emphasized the impact of President Trump’s policies on their day-to-day lives.
Dr. Jenna Norton has been a long-time critic of the president’s health policies and was put on administrative leave from the National Institute of Health in 2025, which she said is because of her comments against the administration. (Isabel Papp/MNS)
Among the guests was Dr. Jenna Norton, who organized the Bethesda Declaration, a public letter to protest the Trump administration’s health policies and funding cuts. According to her, last year’s research funding cuts put Americans at risk and wasted more money than they saved.
“When you halt a five-year study, a $5 million study, four years in, you don’t save $1 million, you waste $4 million,” Dr. Norton told the crowd. “They continue to this day to censor research in violation of the courts, erasing people from science who don’t fit their vision.”
However, the night did not go without interruption. While Sen. Murphy took the stage speaking on the struggles of immigrants, a heckler broke through the barricade and took the stage. Despite carrying a sign that read “No money for ICE,” he shouted “Go Trump!” into the microphone before being escorted off the stage. Later, another heckler called out from the audience.
During Sen. Chris Murphy’s speech, a man broke through the barricade and approached the stage, shouting, before security escorted him away with some difficulty. (Isabel Papp/MNS)
The event’s message was a stark contrast to President Trump’s State of the Union address, which centered on the success of his immigration policy and his administration’s efforts to grow the American economy.
“And now I’m bringing them way down on health care and everything else,” the president said. “I’m also confronting one of the biggest rip-offs of our times, the crushing cost of health care, caused by you, since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).”
Rep. Greg Casar’s (D-Texas) guest, Jill Kordick, an Iowa resident, had a different story. “Honestly, I am making choices to defer health care, just all in, you know, great fiscal caution. There are millions of Americans that are affected by the loss of the ACA credits,” she said.
The last government shutdown ended without an extension of ACA tax credits, which led to significant increases in health insurance costs for Americans and was a significant point of contention for Democrats. Roughly 22 million people saw their health care premiums increase in 2026, with many dropping their coverage.
“This isn’t abstract. These are real policy choices, errant policy choices, and they’re harming real people like me,” Kordick said.
One protester arrived with the Straw Hat flag, a symbol from the popular anime One Piece that has been co-opted by protests around the world to symbolize the fight against tyranny. (Isabel Papp/MNS)
Attendees seemed optimistic ahead of November’s midterm elections, predicting that a decline in Trump’s approval rating would be reflected in the polls.
Attendees seemed optimistic ahead of November’s midterm elections, predicting that a decline in Trump’s approval rating would be reflected in the polls.
“The People’s State of the Union starts tonight and we’re going to keep it going every day of the week through November and to the end of this man’s term until we get the country that we deserve,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, D-Calif.
Protesters’ signs echoed the speakers’ calls for change, an end to the redaction of the Epstein files, and for ICE to cease its operations.
“But if the only way out is through, then the only way through is together. As one people, fighting for the ones we don’t know yet,” said Nedia Morsy, director of Make the Road New Jersey, a community initiative to empower Latino immigrants in New Jersey.
“Presidents can come and go, but we are here to stay,” Morsy said.
(Isabel Papp/MNS)
10 economic falsehoods debunked from Trump’s State of the Union speech
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump launched into his State of the Union speech Tuesday night with sweeping bravado about the economy after his first year in office. At best, his claims were misleading or lacked context. At worst, they were blatantly false.
Inflation Claim: “The Biden administration and its allies in Congress gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country. But in 12 months, my administration has driven core inflation down to the lowest level in more than five years. And in the last three months of 2025, it was down to 1.7%.”
Verdict: False.
Analysis: It’s not clear why Trump singled out a period of three months considering that inflation reports tend to operate on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis, but regardless, his assertion of inflation at 1.7% is inaccurate. When Trump took office, the average annual inflation rate was 2.9% and went up to 3% after the introduction of global tariffs, settling to 2.6% for 2025. Five years ago in February of 2021, inflation was at 1.7%. During Biden’s administration, inflation hit a recent high of 9.1% due to post-COVID federal spending, labor market issues and price shocks from the Russia-Ukraine war. However, this was not the worst inflation rate in U.S. history – in 1980, inflation reached a rate of over 14%.
Gas Prices Claim: “Gasoline, which reached a peak of over $6 a gallon in some states under my predecessor and was, quite honestly, a disaster, is now below $2.30 a gallon in most states, and in some places $1.99 a gallon.”
Verdict: Misleading.
Analysis: According to the American Automobile Association, on the day of the State of the Union address, the national average for regular gas prices was $2.95. Gas prices have come down: the average a year ago at this time was $3.14 a gallon. While Trump exaggerated his numbers, the general sentiment of falling gas prices was echoed by Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell at a January press conference. “Geopolitical risk for us, a lot of it is around energy and oil,” he said. “For all the turmoil, oil prices have come down.”
Electricity Costs Claim: “We’re telling the major tech companies that they have the obligation to provide for their own power needs. They can build their own power plants as part of their factory, so that no one’s prices will go up and in many cases, prices of electricity will go down for the community.”
Verdict: Misleading.
Analysis: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. average for electricity prices is up almost 9% from 2024, and is projected to continue to rise. There is also no legal mandate that tech companies must swallow additional costs rather than hiking consumer costs. After his speech, White House spokeswoman Taylor Rodgers announced Wednesday that tech companies would meet with Trump next week to sign a pledge that prices will not go up.
At a recent energy conference, Google’s Senior Lead for U.S. Energy Markets Brian George made no allusions to direction from the executive branch on powering their own facilities. George said the company is working with utility partners to offset demand, but did not promise that consumers will see stable costs. “It’s going to be a balance between how much flexibility we can provide and how much infrastructure we need to build,” he said.
Foreign Investment Claim: “In 12 months, I secured commitments for more than $18 trillion pouring in from all over the globe.”
Verdict: False.
Analysis: According to the White House’s own investment announcements website, total U.S. and foreign investments currently stand at $9.7 trillion.
Jobs Claim: “More Americans are working today than at any time in the history of our country. Think about that. Any time in the history of our country. More working today, and 100% of all jobs created under my administration have been in the private sector.”
Verdict: Misleading.
Analysis: While more Americans are currently employed than ever before, this is a statistic that could be touted by nearly every president since the country’s population increases every year. A more accurate measure of economic growth is the unemployment rate which measures employment as a proportion of the population. This percentage has increased under Trump’s second term from 4% when he took office to its current standing at 4.3%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Debt Claim: “When it comes to the corruption that is plundering, really, it’s plundering America, there’s been no more stunning example than Minnesota, where members of the Somali community have pillaged an estimated $19 billion from the American taxpayer… And we’re able to find enough of that fraud, we will actually have a balanced budget overnight.”
Verdict: False.
Analysis: Two points to address here: The total for fraud in Minnesota was reported to be $9 billion according to the House Oversight Committee, less than half of Trump’s claim. Of the 98 defendants, 85 were reported to be of Somali descent. Second, this number is nowhere near enough to write off the nation’s debt. The national deficit blew past $1.8 trillion in the 2025 fiscal year, per the Congressional Budget Office.
Economic expert Jim Clouse spent many years working at the Federal Reserve and Federal Open Market Committee and now conducts research at the Andersen Institute for Finance and Economics as a senior fellow. Clouse said the national deficit is unusually large considering the general strength of the economy.
“They’re also continuing to run deficits even when the economy is at full employment,” he said. “Those are usually periods when the economy is strong and back at full employment, that you’re running surpluses, or at least slowing down the pace of the size of deficits relative to GDP. And that doesn’t seem to be the case.”
Tax Cuts Claim: “Last year, I urged this Congress to begin the mission by passing the largest tax cuts in American history, and the Republican majority delivered so beautifully!”
Verdict: False.
Analysis: Trump is referencing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law over the summer. The bill delivered tax cuts for working citizens, businesses and several federal programs. The Tax Foundation think tank gathered data on the impact of tax cuts by measuring revenue changes as a share of GDP, which determined that Trump’s cuts stood in sixth place. The largest tax cut in history was the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 under former president Ronald Reagan’s administration.
SNAP Claim: “We cut a record number of job-killing regulations, and in one year we have lifted 2.4 million Americans – a record – off of food stamps.”
Verdict: Misleading.
Analysis: Yes, 2.4 million people are now unable to receive benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. However, this is not a sign of decreasing poverty but a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is cutting federal spending on certain welfare programs. Millions of people will lose eligibility for food stamps due to new work requirements. In fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute, the federal minimum wage officially fell below the poverty line in 2025.
“Warrior Dividend” Claim: “Every service member recently received a Warrior Dividend of $1,776. They put it on my desk. We got the money from tariffs and other things. A lot of money.”
Verdict: False.
Analysis: Yes, more than 1.4 million service members received a bonus in December, but this money did not come from tariffs. The bonuses came out of a supplemental housing fund included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to the Department of Defense to support personnel who do not live in barracks housing. Instead, Trump used that money for his widespread “Warrior Dividend,” which will go to all active service members, whether they are living in barracks or not.
Trump accounts Claim: “With modest additional contributions, these young people’s accounts could grow to over $100,000 or more by the time they turn 18.”
Verdict: False.
Analysis: Trump is launching investment accounts with a base of $1,000 for babies born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. Growth from accumulating interest is not guaranteed, and it is extremely unlikely that a base investment of $1,000 would become $100,000 in 18 years. Using a historical annual growth rate in the stock market of 10%, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s investment calculator predicts the total after 18 years to be less than $6,000. Inflation would offset those gains by a further 2-3% per year, and that’s only if the economy does not face any big fluctuations.
Amid Trump’s ‘war on fraud,’ lawmakers turn to investigating $200 billion in Covid relief funds
WASHINGTON — In the longest State of the Union address to date, President Donald Trump on Tuesday declared a “war on fraud.”
The next day, senators met to denounce fraud in post-Covid federal relief programs. The Small Business Administration failed to thoroughly investigate two million individuals suspected of stealing at least $200 billion in taxpayer dollars, according to a 2025 Government Accountability Office report.
Republicans warned that the statute of limitations on these cases are approaching as early as April 6, meaning courts will soon lose the ability to prosecute those individuals. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, urged the Senate to approve her SBA Enforcement Expansion Act, which would extend these expiration dates by 10 years.
The bill has passed through the House, but the full Senate has yet to follow.
Ernst said that under the Biden administration, the Small Business Administration was running a “drive through” for Americans to fraudulently receive financial support. She praised the Trump administration and the Republican Party for making anti-fraud efforts a priority.
“I call on Democrats to stop blocking this legislation so there can be real accountability,” Ernst said. “I am grateful the current administration knows that the job is not finished.”
Democrats have not formally blocked the bill in a vote.
But Sen. Ed Markey, D-MA, pointed out that Trump has weaponized fraud issues for political gain in multiple public statements. In his State of the Union address, Trump accused the Somali community in Minnesota of stealing $19 billion taxpayer dollars.
“The Somali pirates who ransacked Minnesota remind us that there are large parts of the world where bribery, corruption, and lawlessness are the norm, not the exception,” Trump said in the address. “Importing these cultures through unrestricted immigration and open borders brings us problems right here to the USA.”
While stressing that fraud must be taken seriously, Markey denounced Trump’s move to blame immigrants while staying silent on accusations such as his own alleged tax evasion. The Trump Organization was convicted of criminal tax fraud in December 2022.
“That’s hypocrisy I think that really bothers people even as they see the president up there trying to demonize a small number of people,” Markey said. “Today’s hearing is about fraud at the SBA and we know that bad actors took advantage of some of these co programs. We don’t deny that and we must hold them accountable.”
In supporting his Republican counterpart’s fraud accountability efforts, Markey did not hesitate to point out that 90% of the Small Business Administration loans were in proved in 2020 under Trump’s first administration.
Mazie Hirono, D-HI, likewise mentioned Trump in her testimony. Hirono criticized witness William Kirk, inspector general of the Small Business Association for averting her question about whether the rule of law applied to the president.
“(Trump) doesn’t think the rule of law applies to him,” Hirono said. “He thinks that the Supreme Court has given him pretty much immunity.”
Hirono questioned Kirk’s independence as inspector general, a critical part of the role especially after Trump mass removed 17 presidentially appointed inspectors general in January 2025.
Party affiliations aside, all senators present at the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee hearing ultimately acknowledged support for investigating Covid-era fraud cases.
“Let’s go after the fraudsters,” Ernst said. “Red, blue, it doesn’t matter. Fraud is fraud.”
In Photos: The walk into the State of the Union
WASHINGTON — Guests, lawmakers and political dignitaries entered the State of the Union Tuesday evening, walking through the press in Statuary Hall.
By the minute: How Trump filled record-breaking State of the Union
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump delivered the longest State of the Union in history at almost 108 minutes Tuesday night. He began the address to Congress, which totaled more than 10,000 words, by stating that America is the “hottest country” in the world.
Trump centered his fourth official State of the Union address — the first of his second term — on economic, immigration and international policy. He framed his accomplishments around America’s 250th birthday.
“Our nation is back,” Trump said. “Bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before.”
The president also joked about “winning too much” and welcomed the Olympic gold-winning U.S. men’s hockey team, amid controversy surrounding FBI Director Kash Patel’s celebration with the team and public backlash to the players’ laughter about the women’s hockey team during a phone call with Trump.
According to a Medill News Service analysis, Trump spent more time praising the hockey players and American athletics than he did talking about Israel, Gaza, Russia, Ukraine and Iran combined.
Policy at the forefront
Trump spent more than a quarter of the address promoting new policy measures and touting his past accomplishments.
With midterm elections on the horizon, Trump focused roughly 10 minutes on the Republican Party’s roadmap for the next two years. He spoke about regulations for artificial intelligence data centers, nationwide voter identification laws, new retirement plan options and further restrictions on insider trading.
However, Trump spent twice as much time touting what he viewed as the successes of his second administration.
“I do think a lot of the success outlined in the State of the Union will be a part of the Republican message in the fall,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told the Associated Press.
1 reference to affordability
Trump spent about 10 minutes on one of the key issues in the upcoming midterm elections: the economy.
According to a February AP-NORC poll, 59% of people disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, compared to just 39% that approve.
Trump only said the word “affordability” once in his entire speech — and it was to attack Democrats, not explain his own economic policies. However, he highlighted increased stock market growth and American oil production, as well as lower inflation and prices on various goods, including gas and eggs, to support his record.
In the Democratic response to the State of the Union, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who ran on an “affordable Virginia” agenda, argued that Trump’s policies are not helping American families.
“Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family?” Spanberger said. “Is the president working to keep Americans safe, both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you?”
Trump also said it was “unfortunate” that the Supreme Court on Friday struck down his tariffs, a large part of his economic agenda. He added that existing deals with countries and businesses will hold because “a new deal could be far worse for them.”
10 minutes on immigration
In the middle of a Department of Homeland Security shutdown over Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding — and while two-thirds of Americans say ICE agents’ actions have gone too far — the president spent less than 10% of his speech on the topic.
But when he did talk about his immigration crackdown, he didn’t change his usual rhetoric.
Trump did not use the word “immigrant” once during his entire speech. But he mentioned the border 16 times and referred to immigrants as “criminals,” “aliens” and “illegal” 25 times in total.
The president spent around two minutes of his address attacking Somali residents of Minnesota, calling them “pirates” and accusing them of corrupting the state. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who is the country’s first Somali-American legislator, heckled Trump during his speech.
“You have killed Americans,” Omar yelled across the chambers, in a reference to the fatal shootings of two Americans by ICE agents in her home state this year.
Trump spent another four minutes promoting his immigration policy by telling stories of Americans who were harmed by “illegal aliens.”
The state of Venezuela
After focusing on his domestic agenda for roughly an hour and 15 minutes, Trump pivoted to foreign policy by highlighting the “eight wars” he claimed to have ended in his second term.
“We’re proudly restoring safety for Americans at home, and we are also restoring security for Americans abroad,” Trump said. “Our country has never been stronger.”
In total, Trump spent less than 20 minutes discussing foreign policy.
He used more than half of this time on Venezuela, where U.S. forces captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in January. Trump recognized a freed Venezuelan politician and awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor to an American pilot who was part of the operation.
Trump spent just three minutes discussing Iran and preventing the development of nuclear weapons.
The President added that he wanted to “solve this problem through diplomacy.” The Associated Press reported that the U.S. has assembled the largest force of aircraft and warships in the Middle East since 2003.
Everything else
Trump spent the second-most amount of time, about 26 minutes, on introducing non-policy-related guests.
For about seven minutes, he gave a Purple Heart to Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe and the parents of Sarah Beckstrom, a West Virginia Army National Guard specialist. An Afghan national was charged with killing Beckstrom and injuring Wolfe in a Washington, D.C., shooting in November.
Trump also recognized Erika Kirk, the widow of late right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk, two World War II veterans, and a rescuer and survivor of the 2025 Texas floods.
Trump spent almost the same amount of time celebrating the Olympic U.S. men’s hockey team as he did criticizing Democrats for their handling of the economy and immigration. He did not criticize any Republicans who have spoken out against him.
He also praised Secretary of State Marco Rubio for approximately a minute and First Lady of the United States Melania Trump for almost two.
In Photos: Trump delivers longest State of the Union address in history
WASHINGTON — President Trump delivered the nation’s longest State of the Union address Tuesday evening as he touted his administration’s immigration enforcement and condemned the actions of Democratic representatives.
Among the guests were Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, a pilot injured in the military operation that captured the former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team.
Several democrats boycotted the speech, instead opting for alternative events, including the “People’s State of the Union” and “State of the Swamp.” Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who was removed from Trump’s address to Congress last year, displayed a sign that said, “Black people are not apes,” in reference to Trump’s racist post about the Obamas on Truth Social earlier this month. Green then exited the chamber as the speech began.
Trump entered the chambers at 9:10 p.m. to applause from lawmakers and the crowd above the floor. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
He opened the speech with a positive assessment of the first year of his second term. “Our nation is back — bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before.” (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
The U.S men’s Olympic hockey team, fresh off a gold medal-winning show at the Milan Cortina games, stood in the press gallery amid thunderous applause as Trump introduced them. Trump announced that he will award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Team USA hockey goalie Connor Hellebuyck. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Below the hockey players, lawmakers erupted into a chant of “USA, USA”. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
According to NBC News, applause accounted for about 40 minutes of Trump’s 107-minute speech. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
First Lady Melania Trump received a standing ovation before the State of the Union Address. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Republicans stood and applauded at many points in the speech, while Democrats remained seated in defiance. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., yelled at Trump during the address, “You have killed Americans,” in a reference to the fatal shootings of two Americans by ICE agents in her home state this year. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
(Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
(Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Trump praised Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk, during his speech. “Charlie was violently murdered by an assassin, and a martyr, really, for his beliefs. His wonderful wife, Erika, is with us tonight,” Trump said. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Trump criticized Democrats sitting across from him for not standing up during his speech.“These people are crazy,” he said. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Trump ended the speech by promoting his leadership period as the “golden age” of America. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Lawmakers and guests milled about the chambers after the speech, many pausing to take selfies with Trump’s cabinet members, such as Secretary Pete Hegseth. (Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)
Medill Today | Tuesday, March 10, 2026