Politics

Artists wary of Trump’s unprecedented takeover of the Kennedy Center
Performing arts likely to be affected by Trump’s appointment as chairman and replacement of its board
read more
Strategic bitcoin reserve signals Trump administration’s increased loyalty to cryptocurrency industry
Trump administration established a strategic bitcoin reserve via executive order last week.
read more
Hearing derailed as Republican chairman misgenders transgender colleague
Chairman Keith Self abruptly adjourned a House hearing on Tuesday in the face of pushback from Democrats after he misgendered transgender committee member Sarah McBride.
read more
Trump remains firm on tariff policy as stocks fall to their lowest in months
The White House defended Trump’s America first policies, pledging they would prove effective after the current “transition period”
read more
Mayors Stand Firm on Sanctuary Policies Despite Threats
Four major city mayors testified about their sanctuary policies, facing heat from House Republicans
read moreRep. Tiffany discusses priorities this term
Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) has been focused on confirming President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees for the first months of this Congressional term. Now he’s focusing on his priorities, both nationally and for his northern Wisconsin constituents. Jeremy Fredricks sat down with the Congressman in his office on Capitol Hill.
Watch the video report here:
President Trump to address Congress
President Donald Trump will give an annual address to Congress on Tuesday night. Trump is expected to talk about his priorities for the administration: immigration, foreign policy and the economy. Jeremy Fredricks has more from the White House.
Watch the video report here:
Supreme Court examines a prisoner’s right to a jury trial in specific exhaustion cases
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday about who decides if prisoners have exhausted all of their available remedies when filing grievances, weighing the scopes of the Seventh Amendment and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Kyle Richards, an inmate at Michigan’s Baraga Correctional Facility, filed twenty-six grievance forms between June 6, 2019, and April 23, 2020, claiming that Resident Unit Manager Thomas Perttu was sexually harassing him. Richards also alleged that Perttu destroyed claims during this period, and that Perttu threatened to kill him if more grievances were filed.
Perttu v. Richards examines whether prisoners have a right to a jury trial in exhaustion cases where the disputed facts are connected to the main issue of the lawsuit or if a judge should oversee these cases.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled that a judge could hear cases with this overlap. However, in March 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, overturned this ruling, saying a jury trial is required under the Seventh Amendment.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, or the PLRA, was enacted in 1996 and states that “no civil action shall be brought regarding prison conditions until the plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies.”
In an amicus brief supporting Perttu, the state of Ohio, 23 other states and the District of Columbia said the PLRA aims to “reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits.”
“There’s not really a dispute that the inmate has a right to have a jury decide his underlying claim,” said Kevin Russell, a partner at Russell and Woofter LLC who filed an amicus brief on behalf of numerous law professors across the country.
Russell instead said that the case looks at a potential overlap in jurisdiction that may arise as a judge typically rules on exhaustion claims and a jury rules on the merits of that case. In this instance, these two are intertwined.
During the oral arguments, justices touched on the lack of historical precedent, as exhaustion claims did not exist at the time of the Seventh Amendment.
A lawyer for Perttu argued that equity courts at the time heard cases involving traditional equitable defenses and were historically seen by judges.
“We know that exhaustion has its roots in equity,” said Ann M. Sherman, a lawyer for Perttu. “And we think that the most appropriate analogs here are equitable defenses.”
Lori Alvino McGill, a lawyer for Richards, argued that despite a lack of direct historical precedence, functional consideration supported a jury trial.
“Even though there wasn’t an affirmative defense called ‘exhaustion’ in 1791, there were affirmative defenses to tort liability damages, including the statute of limitations,” said McGill. “And we know that juries decided factual disputes with regard to an affirmative defense.”
When hearing arguments in Perttu’s favor, Justice Sotomayor appeared skeptical of the claims that allowing a jury trial would result in increased prisoner litigation.
Sotomayor cited previous cases from the Second Circuit, where she used to be a judge.
“In those 12 years, only five cases has there been litigation over whether or not there was exhaustion because only five cases was it interwound with the merits,” she said.
T. Elliot Gaiser, Ohio Solicitor General, said that this will lead to a decrease in the number of cases making it to jury trial, easing the burden on state attorneys and prisons.
“You won’t have courts inundated with jury trials about the relatively mundane questions of whether a prisoner complied with the state rules for administrative remedies before they went to federal court,” he said.
A ruling in favor of Perttu would mean that cases with an overlap of exhaustion and merits claims would require a judge ruling before it can be sent to a jury trial.
A ruling in favor of Richards would allow cases that fall under this category to be tried in front of a jury.
Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for legal studies at the Cato Institute which filed an amicus brief in support of Richards, said that a ruling in this way would “hopefully reinforce the Supreme Court’s commitment to the basic constitutional structure” of juries deciding disputes between citizens and the government.
There did not appear to be a consensus among the judges. Neily said this ruling could go either way.
“My sense it will likely be pretty narrow, given the back and forth the argument,” said Neily. “I would expect the decision to be written fairly narrowly.”
A ruling is expected in summer 2025.
White House grants one-month exemption to tariffs on Canada, Mexico for US automakers
WASHINGTON — The White House granted a one month-exemption to any tariffs on cars coming into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Wednesday.
Leavitt said that President Trump had met with the leaders of the “Big Three” automakers, including Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, and decided the exemption would apply to any U.S. automakers associated with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
“At the request of the companies associated with the USMCA, the president is giving them an exemption for one month so they are not at an economic disadvantage,” said Leavitt, reading off a statement prepared by Trump.
Wednesday’s announcement was a sign of Trump’s attempts to balance his commitment to tariffs with his determination to help U.S. industries. Leavitt also said the White House was “open” to hearing requests from other industries seeking tariff exemptions.
The development comes a day after Trump announced 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada had begun. Any trade-related tariffs for those automakers will eventually go into effect on April 2, Leavitt announced.
The message from the White House was to have all automakers relocate their production into the U.S., Leavitt said.
“They should get on it, start investing, start moving, shift production here to the United States of America, where they will pay no tariffs,” Leavitt.
Leavitt also doubled down on the White House’s recent decision to raise tariffs on imports from China to 20%, blaming the country for failing to address the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. through illicit channels.
“Of course, the country that is getting very rich off of distributing this deadly poison to American citizens is going to say that,” Leavitt said. “This is the number one leading cause of death in our country, and there needs to be action taken to ensure that that cannot continue.”
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tuesday released a statement pushing back against the new round of tariffs, saying it is prepared for “any war” with the U.S. In retaliation, China has imposed a 15% tariff on American agricultural goods.
Sen. Slotkin preaches bipartisanship, protecting democracy in the Democratic response
WASHINGTON – Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) delivered the Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress Tuesday night, providing a sharp contrast to the partisanship displayed by Trump.
Unity was the theme of the address, with Slotkin saying that “whether you’re from Wyandotte or Wichita, most Americans share three core beliefs: that the middle class is the engine of our country, that strong national security protects us from harm, and that our democracy, no matter how messy, is unparalleled and worth fighting for.”
Slotkin spoke directly to the middle class, a term that was never mentioned in Trump’s over 90-minute speech. She addressed the nation from Wyandotte, Michigan, a working-class city south of Detroit. She narrowly won her seat in 2024 despite President Trump winning the state in the election.
“It might not seem like it, but plenty of places like this still exist across the United States, places where people believe that if you work hard and play by the rules, you should do well and your kids should do better,” she said.
The freshman senator from Michigan’s appeals to the middle class represents the larger push by the Democratic party to win back this demographic that has shifted right in recent years. She pushed the message of bipartisanship throughout her speech last night, referencing growing up in a split-party household.
“It was never a big deal,” said Slotkin. “We had shared values that were bigger than any one party.”
In her speech, Slotkin criticized Trump’s economic policy, a sentiment shared by Common Cause, a liberal-learning government watchdog think tank.
“We’re continuing to see those billionaires and multi millionaire donors line their own pockets at the expense of everyday Americans, which is just astounding, given that so many Americans are facing the increased cost of living and increased cost of food,” said Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause.
Slotkin referenced Michigan’s historical role in American manufacturing as the birthplace of the auto industry.
“Michigan literally invented the middle class, the revolutionary idea that you can work at an auto plant and afford the car you are building. That’s the American dream,” she said.
The senator also discussed national security, touching on her time in the CIA as well as advising on national security to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. She noted the importance of allies across the globe, referencing the heated meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Friday.
“That scene in the Oval Office wasn’t just a bad episode of reality TV, it summed up Trump’s whole approach to the world,” she said.
The decision by the Democrats to select Slotkin for this address speaks to Michigan’s crucial role as a battleground state during national elections.
“I think this is the Democratic Party yet again, signaling how important Michigan is for our future presidential races and keeping eyes on us as well as we head into the midterm elections in 2026,” said Kalamazoo County Democratic Party chair Justin Mendoza.
Slotkin ended her speech with a call to action and stressed the importance of preserving American democracy.
“So as much as we need to make our government more responsive to our lives today, don’t for one moment fool yourself that democracy isn’t precious and worth saving,” said Slotkin.
In address to Congress, Trump declares ‘the golden age of America has just begun’
WASHINGTON – In an address to both chambers of Congress, President Donald Trump on Tuesday praised his government’s actions during the first 43 days of his second administration, highlighting a crackdown on illegal immigration, erasing what he considers wasteful spending, levying tariffs on U.S. allies, and bringing Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table.
While Republicans cheered and clapped throughout the speech, Democrats remained seated. Some held up signs with phrases such as “FALSE” and “Save Medicaid.” When Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) stood up and told Trump he had “no mandate,” Republicans shouted for Green to be removed. Green was escorted out of the chamber by law enforcement minutes after the speech began.
“I look at the democrats in front of me and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say or do to make them happy or to make them stand, smile, or vote,” Trump said.
The address, which took the place of the annual State of the Union, showed Trump’s determination to take the country in unprecedented directions and fulfill his MAGA agenda. Congress is divided markedly along party lines after both the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a slim majority, and the Senate, shifted to the right after the November 2024 election. Trump emphasized divisive issues like ending DEI initiatives and banning transgender youth from women’s sports.
“I heard two hours of pitting one group of Americans against another and stoking division and bigotry,” said Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.)
President Trump’s speech focused on his “incredible wins for America,” the “unlimited promise of the American Dream,” and highlighted recent crackdowns on immigration.
Trump praised “record low” border crossing numbers under his administration and blamed Former President Biden for immigration across the US-Mexico border.
“The Democrat party kept saying we needed new legislation, we must have legislation to secure the border, but it turned out that all we really needed was a new president,” Trump said, to cheers and a standing ovation from Republicans.
During his first six weeks in the White House, Trump levied tariffs against Mexico and Canada to reduce the movement of fentanyl, a lethal drug, across the border.
“Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again,” Trump said, receiving applause from congressional Republicans.
During the address, Trump unveiled a new tariff strategy. On April 2, “reciprocal tariffs will kick in.” Describing the strategy, Trump said, “whatever they tariff us…we will tariff them.”

Howard Lutnick, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, speaks to reporters in National Statuary Hall following President Trump’s joint address to Congress. (Joshua Sukoff/Medill News Service)
“Reciprocity is the name of the game,” Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick told reporters in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall. “Let’s create amazing growth for America.”
“This is a time for big dreams and bold actions,” Trump said. “Upon taking office, I imposed an immediate freeze on all new federal hiring, a freeze on all new federal regulations, and a freeze on all foreign aid.
As he touted government funds slashed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump rattled off a long list of programs he claimed were “wasteful,” which earned applause and a standing ovation from congressional Republicans.
“The days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over,” Trump said.
In response, some Democrats on the chamber floor ironically pointed to Musk, an unelected presidential advisor leading DOGE, and one Democrat could be heard audibly laughing.
Further promoting his economic actions, Trump advocated for increasing oil and natural gas production to access America’s “liquid gold.” Trump said, “it’s called ‘Drill baby drill!’”
Near the end of his address, Trump said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was ready to “come to the negotiating table” to end the war there. He also said he was having “serious discussions” with Russia.
“It’s time to stop this madness, it’s time to halt the killing, it’s time to end the senseless war,” he said. “If you want to end wars you have to talk to both sides.”
Just days before, Trump berated Zelenskyy and ended the meeting without signing a deal.
Republican members of Congress enjoyed the speech. They exited the chamber through Statuary Hall, praising the speech. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called it “epic” and “beautiful,” and Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) called it “positive.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) liked Trump’s confident and decisive tone.
“He took the gloves off tonight. I think it was still an optimistic one for America, putting America first,” he said.
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) also liked the speech. He said that what’s important for Republicans moving forward is supporting the president and having his back. He wants to show Americans and congressional Democrats that “we believe in getting America into the golden age.”
After the speech, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) gave the Democratic response.
“Donald Trump’s actions suggest that in his heart, he doesn’t believe we’re an exceptional nation,” Slotkin said.
Many Democratic congresswomen wore pink in broad protest of Trump administration policies. Several Democrats, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), boycotted the address. Others left the chamber throughout the address. Democrats in attendance criticized the president’s rhetoric pointing to his portrayals of immigrants and transgender people.
“It’s absolute bulls— from this administration and this president,” said Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) after the speech. “I couldn’t take it any longer at the end.”
Supreme Court considers when U.S. courts have jurisdiction over foreign disputes
WASHINGTON – Two Indian companies argued before the Supreme Court Monday about whether the U.S. legal system can rule over their case.
In 2005, Devas, an Indian multimedia company, and Antrix, a government-owned Indian space company, signed a space and satellite agreement that would have given Devas access to two satellites owned by Antrix.
Antrix broke the agreement in 2011, due to national security concerns. Devas is now seeking $552.5 million plus interest, an amount set by an international mediator.
“[The award is] worth little if no courts can enforce it,” said Aaron Streett, a lawyer for Devas.
The outcome of this case could influence which foreign cases can be brought to U.S. court in the future. It could also impact whether foreign corporations can confirm compensation from a foreign dispute in the U.S., which could potentially overturn 67 years of precedent. If the court rules in favor of Antrix, the U.S. could initiate a reinterpretation of how foreign compensation would be enforced, encouraging other countries to follow.
Antrix argued that this dispute does not belong in the U.S. legal system because Antrix and Devas are both private Indian companies. Antrix is owned by the Indian government but is legally separate from the government under the Indian Companies Act.
“[The conflict arose] exclusively between Indian citizens in India under an Indian contract with a dispute resolution system in India [that was] to be decided by an Indian court,” said Carter Phillips, one of the lawyers for Antrix.
The Indian Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Antrix citing fraud on Devas’ side of the original agreement. However, Devas brought the case to a U.S. district court, which confirmed their award. Antrix appealed, taking the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the lower court and ruled in Antrix’s favor.
The 9th Circuit is the only circuit to state that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires foreign states to have sufficient connections to the U.S. for a U.S. court to hear the cases.
“There’s nothing really in the [law] that you can point to that requires minimum contacts [connections]… So it’s not really a very well grounded argument,” said Robert Kry, a lawyer who wrote a brief in support of Devas.
Devas appealed again, and the case was sent to the Supreme Court.
In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., the Supreme Court could determine whether Devas has to show that the case and its participants have enough connections to the U.S. in order to sue Antrix in U.S. court.
During the oral arguments Monday, the Supreme Court considered two main points of contention: First, whether foreign states are “persons” protected by the U.S. Constitution. This would determine whether Antrix, a company incorporated in India, can be considered a “person” under the U.S. legal system.
“Antrix is the alter ego of India,” said Matthew McGill, counsel for Devas, who said Antrix is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. “India is not a natural or artificial person under the [U.S. Constitution].”
The second point of contention is whether foreign states have to prove sufficient connections to the U.S. to bring their case to the U.S. legal system.
According to Phillips, this is “beyond the limits of what Congress can regulate” and the Supreme Court could “disrespect” the Indian Supreme Court if it were to continue “intruding” and rule against Antrix.
Phillips said Antrix should be protected by the U.S. Constitution as a “person,” and under the Fifth Amendment, Devas would be required to prove that Antrix is sufficiently linked to the U.S. before the case can be seen by the U.S. court.
However, the justices raised concerns about inconsistencies in Antrix’s argument. Their claims, based on the U.S. Constitution, were different from their claims in the lower courts, which were based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan said the case may not be ready for the Supreme Court if Antrix chooses to argue the case based on the U.S. Constitution instead of their previous argument based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
“We are not the people to evaluate this in the first instance when neither the 9th Circuit nor any other circuit has done so,” Kagan said.
If the Supreme Court decides to proceed with the case, there could be two possible outcomes.
One could be that the Supreme Court sides with Devas, which would overturn the appeals court.
The second could be that the Supreme Court sides with Antrix, which could require foreign entities to prove a connection to the U.S. before their cases are heard in U.S. courts. Other countries could apply similar standards.
“That would be a narrow interpretation,” Kry said. “The concern would be that that would then encourage other countries to reach that same interpretation.”
Lawyers for Antrix however, argued that this narrow interpretation would be a good thing for the U.S.
“Why would U.S. courts want to waste their resources resolving a dispute of another country?” Phillips asked. “The U.S. courts don’t have the power to dictate to the world what’s fair and just.”
A ruling is expected before October 2025.
VA crisis line workers say mission will be harmed by in-office mandate
WASHINGTON — There was a fear festering in Dean’s mind even before she found out late February that she and all other VA crisis line responders had been ordered to return to work at their Atlanta satellite office in the coming months.
Still, the news came as a shock. Almost five years earlier, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, she was sent home to work. Every day, she would wake up early, slip on her headset and start answering calls from distressed veterans.
Dean has taken calls from veterans expressing suicidal ideations and many others experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder. Like all other national call center responders, her job is to guide them through their distress.
“Someone’s life can be saved,” Dean said, who was granted the use of a pseudonym in fear of retribution.
The order that Dean and her colleagues received to return to in-person work followed President Donald Trump’s announcement on his first day back in office that federal workers would no longer be allowed to work from home.
In a Feb. 3 statement, then-acting VA Secretary Todd Hunter wrote that, “most VA clinical staff don’t have the luxury of working remotely, and we believe the performance, collaboration and productivity of the department will improve if all VA employees are held to the same standard.”
Sweeping rounds of layoffs at various federal outfits followed, including the VA.
In a statement, VA press secretary Pete Kasperowicz said that current department policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.
“VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” he said.
Different agencies have had their own timelines to enforce the return-to-office policy. But come May 5, Dean will have to commute to work again, which could mean two hours each way in snarled traffic.
Even before she was sent home during the pandemic, Dean felt that the work space was too small for its swelling operations.
In her two years in the office, Dean remembers the workforce almost doubling. What started as a single office floor, where about 100 employees crammed into cubicles, expanded to two levels.
“I cannot imagine how we’ve grown since 2020, everybody on one shift reporting to that shift in that same office,” Dean said. “It’s going to be a lot of unanswered calls … it’s going to be a big problem and a delay to services.”
Dean’s story is not unique. Many other veteran crisis line responders were forced to give up remote work after building their lives around the flexibility working from home provided in the wake of the pandemic. There was no reason for them to change that now, some say, with the crisis lines’ workforce continuing to multiply and the number of calls they receive showing no signs of abating.
A 2024 report from the VA Suicide Prevention Program found that since the launch of a new crisis call line in 2022, there was a 22.7% increase in calls per day. The system answered more than 1.6 million calls in those two years.
Today, the crisis line answers more than 60,000 calls each month.
Responders are charged with everything from offering emotional support and guidance to arranging medical assistance during calls with a veteran, sometimes with civilians as well. The lengths of calls can stretch from minutes to hours.
Besides Atlanta, there were two other in-person crisis line agencies across the country before the pandemic — one in Canandaigua, New York, and the other in Topeka, Kansas.
After crisis line operations went remote, there were more opportunities for expansion, according to Erika Alexander, the president of AFGE Local 518 union, which represents about 1,000 crisis line employees in Atlanta.
For one, the VA no longer needed to worry about hiring people who lived far from one of the call centers.
“Our home address became our duty station,” said Alexander, who previously worked as a crisis center responder for eight years.
Carmen, who similarly asked to use a pseudonym in fear of retribution, was among the new round of responders hired in Florida during the pandemic. She comes from a military family and previously worked in social services. So, when the job opportunity arose, she jumped.
“It was perfect. … I didn’t need to leave the house, I got my headset on, and I was very comfortable with that,” said Carmen, who also needs to balance her job with caring for her father, a Vietnam War veteran. “It’s been really a blessing for a very stressful job.”
Up to this point, there have been few clues, if any, of where she might work next. While she suspects the VA will eventually find a federal office for her to work, she said she has seriously weighed whether it might be better to leave her job.
“Are they going to send me to work in a closed building? Are they going to send me far away? I have no idea how this is going to work out,” Carmen said. “I am not going to relocate my entire family.”
Alexander said she’s met many other members in her union, who, like Carmen, are located hours away from the three major crisis line agencies. The responses from crisis line workers while working from home seemed only positive, she said.
Many responders echoed sentiments to her that they’d found a better “life balance” in a job that means long hours and the delicate task of guiding callers away from despair.
Regardless, Alexander has been juggling too much. She’d been sent to inspect federal buildings for crisis line operations in Atlanta, many of which were not well-equipped, per her assessments. Other times, union members planning to hand in their resignations have gone to her.
“It’s really just chaotic,” Alexander said. “There’s a lot of people already calling out from work. … They can’t handle the stress.”
On Monday, all call center supervisors were ordered to return to work in-person, even though many of their employees were not in the same office space — let alone the same city. It is also unlikely the same office spaces they used prior to the pandemic can handle most crisis line operations, Alexander said.
For responders who don’t end up moving within a certain radius of their new work space in the coming months, they could have no choice but to face termination.
Dean said she can’t imagine what it’ll be like when she goes back to work.
Everyday, she still wakes up near the crack of dawn to start answering calls. Now, she can be home to say goodbye to her kids and embrace them when they come home from school. Her husband also shows her more appreciation now, she joked, because of her “home-cooked meals.”
Like many crisis line responders, Dean comes from a family of veterans, including both her husband and brother. She understands the need for a responder to be there in time for someone in crisis.
And despite the work order, she still plans to return to her work station.
“Being able to work remotely has been my saving grace with being able to do what I love,” Dean said. “Just to be available on the other end of that phone when they call and they really need help — it really means a lot to me.”
Watch: What CPAC 2025 told us about Trump and the Conservative Party
OXEN HILL, Md. – Last weekend President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, international leaders, and a chainsaw all shared one stage. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) saw the largest crowd in its history, and one very much in support of the President and his agenda.
Trump claims that seventy percent of Americans believe “that what we are doing is right, and we are keeping our promises.”
Watch the video report here:
Navy secretary nominee John Phelan grilled by Senate Armed Services Committee Democrats
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) — John Phelan, President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of the Navy, faced a tense confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday as Democratic lawmakers scrutinized plans to improve the Navy’s operations amid budget cuts to the armed forces.
Phelan, an investor and businessman with no prior military experience, argued that his experience in managing large teams of professionals would translate into managing the U.S. Navy, which has a workforce of more than 900,000 people and a budget that exceeds $210 billion.
He pointed to his experience in the private sector — he is the founder and chairman of Rugger Management LLC — and the key role it would play in reducing costs and increasing shipbuilding, which he said was one of Trump’s priorities.
Phelan, who originally is from Coral Gables, Fla., also is chairman of Spirit of America, which works with troops and diplomats to meet needs around the world and support the U.S. mission. The group backs Ukraine in its war with Russia.
“President Trump was right,” Phelan said in his opening statement. “Achieving peace through strength is essential to deterrence and protecting our freedom and our way of life.”
Phelan, who said Trump would text him “at like one in the morning,” outlined his goals if confirmed.
“Extended deployments, inadequate maintenance, huge cost overruns, delayed shipbuilding, failed audits, subpar housing and, sadly, record high suicide rates are systemic failures that have gone unaddressed for far too long, and frankly, this is unacceptable,” he told the committee.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the committee’s ranking member, expressed concern that Phelan might struggle to understand the Navy’s complex structure concerning armed services’ internal issues and international threats.
“I think you’ll quickly come to discover that … the cultures of the Navy are interesting and will present a challenge to understand,” Reed told him.
Republican senators pushed back against doubting his background, portraying his business experience as an asset instead of a liability.
“If we threw a zillion dollars at the Department of the Navy today, we couldn’t build the ships because we don’t have the industrial base,” said Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss.
“We’ve got to fix that. And I think that’s why the president looked to an entrepreneur and an experienced business person.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., pressed Phelan on the recent wave of Department of Defense firings, which included chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. C.Q. Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti.
“Have you spoken to [Franchetti]?” Blumenthal asked.
“I have not, senator,” said Phelan, before hesitating on whether he planned to do so. “If confirmed, senator, I’m happy to hear her views and understand her perspective on things.”
The exchange preceded Blumenthal’s concerns over the Trump administration’s spending and personnel cuts to the armed forces, during which he cited Phelan’s business experience.
“Would you walk into a situation in a deal — you’ve done many, you’ve turned around corporations — where there was a 10% slash in workforce?” Blumenthal asked.
“It’s a hard question to answer,” Phelan replied.
Phelan did not respond to the harms the Department of Government Efficiency could pose to the Navy when Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked whether “Elon Musk with his chainsaw, cutting government programs and eliminating positions without any transparency or criteria” would negatively impact the strength and readiness of the Navy as a yes or no question.
“It’s a hypothetical question. I don’t actually know what DOGE is doing, how they’re doing it, I’m not privy to that,” Phelan answered.
“OK, that’s kind of amazing because you’re going to lead the Navy and not to insult you or anything, but I don’t think you need a lot of information to conclude that a slash-and-burn approach to programs and personnel is the way to go,” Hirono countered.
Phelan vowed to review contracts that deny sailors information necessary to conduct their own repairs, which resulted in “millions in travel costs” that included taxpayer money, according to a ProPublica investigation.
If confirmed, Phelan would be the first person in 15 years to lead the Navy without military experience in any branch of the U.S. armed forces.
Trump supports Musk, DOGE at first Cabinet meeting of second term
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump held his first Cabinet meeting of his second administration Wednesday, where he supported Elon Musk and discussed issues central to his agenda.
Here are four key takeaways from the Cabinet meeting:
- Musk clarified intention of emails sent to federal workers
Although Musk is not in the Cabinet, President Trump made it clear he belonged.
“Is anybody unhappy with Elon?” Trump asked his Cabinet. “If you are, we’ll throw them out of here.”
Wearing a black “Make America Great Again” hat and a t-shirt that said “tech support,” Musk was the first invited to speak after Trump’s initial remarks and a prayer. During his remarks, Musk projected savings of $1 trillion through the Department of Government Efficiency.
Musk acknowledged that the flurry of actions had resulted in mistakes. He mentioned Ebola prevention efforts, which DOGE “accidentally canceled very briefly.”
“We will make mistakes,” said Musk. “We won’t be perfect, but when we make mistakes, we’ll fix it very quickly.”
Musk took credit for emails sent to hundreds of thousands of federal employees over the weekend, demanding they explain their work during the week in five bullet points or risk their employment.
Musk said that the emails were more of a “pulse check review” than a “performance review.”
“We think there are a number of people on the government payroll who are dead, which is probably why they can’t respond, and some people who are not real people,” said Musk.
Trump defended Musk’s emails, saying, “It’s possible that a lot of those people will be actually fired, and if that happened, that’s okay because that’s what we’re trying to do. This country has gotten bloated and fat and disgusting and incompetently run.”
- Plans for $5 million “gold cards” and economic strategy
Trump further detailed the strategy behind granting wealthy foreigners the right to live and work in the U.S. by charging $5 million for “gold cards.”
Unlike his first full Cabinet meeting during his first term, in June 2017, Trump did not invite Cabinet members to introduce themselves. He only called on Musk, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to speak.
Trump asked Lutnick to discuss the gold card program, a revamped version of the EB-5 visa program, which requires substantial investments in the United States.
“Scott (Bessent) and I will design the EB-5 investment model because Scott and I are the best people together to do that,” said Lutnick.
- Russia-Ukraine war and NATO
Trump claimed he was making progress on a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, saying that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy would visit Friday to sign an agreement.
He framed the conflict as a financial burden for the U.S. and inaccurately said former President Joseph Biden spent $350 billion on the war compared to $100 billion from Europe.
According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the U.S. allocated less than half of this amount, providing $114.2 billion compared to $132.3 billion from Europe.
“I believe that, because we got elected, that war will come to an end. And I also believe if we didn’t get elected, if this administration didn’t win the election by a lot, that that war would go on for a long time, and he would want to take the whole thing,” Trump said.
- Afghanistan withdrawal and military plans
Trump criticized the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan under the Biden presidency, and suggested he would fire generals who were involved.
Hegseth said he would conduct a full review of the withdrawal and everyone involved.
“I think they’re going to be largely gone,” said Trump.
Supreme Court seems likely to rule for straight woman in reverse discrimination case
WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared nearly unanimously aligned during oral arguments Wednesday that lower courts applied an unfair burden of proof to an Ohio woman who filed a reverse discrimination claim against a state employer.
Having worked at the Ohio Department of Youth Services for 21 years, Marlean Ames applied for a promotion in April 2019. After she was denied the promotion, her supervisor demoted her to an entry-level position, slashed her salary and threatened to terminate her.
A lesbian woman secured the position for which Ames had applied, while a gay man was placed in her previous job. Ames is a straight woman. Ames then filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination because of her sex and sexual orientation.
“I’ve worked 30-plus years to get the knowledge, skills and ability to be where I was.” Ames said while testifying during one of her lower-court hearings. “I want to feel whole again.”
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Ames’ first sex discrimination claim and held that Ames had not fulfilled her burden of proof in arguing her second allegation about sexual orientation discrimination.
At issue before the high court is whether the lower court held Ames to a higher burden of proof by requiring her to provide evidence, referred to as “background circumstances,” that the defendant acted as an “unusual employer” in discriminating against the majority.
Ohio Solicitor General Elliot Gaiser, representing the defense, argued that the “background circumstances” requirement is not a higher burden, but simply a different one compared to the standard for minority-group plaintiffs.
Repeatedly stating the importance that all plaintiffs are held to the same standard, Gaiser’s arguments teetered on siding with Ames.
Laughing on the bench, Justice Neil Gorsuch exclaimed, “We’re in radical agreement today on that, it seems to me! Counsel before us seem to be in total agreement.”
When commencing a Title VII lawsuit, most plaintiffs must present evidence that demonstrates unfair discrimination before the case goes to trial, a practice known as a prima facie requirement.
This information typically includes proof of belonging to a minority, qualification for a certain job despite being denied for the position and continuous efforts from the employer to solicit applicants with similar qualifications as the plaintiff.
Four out of the 13 appellate courts currently require a plaintiff from a majority group who claims discrimination to demonstrate “background circumstances” to bolster his or her case. Circuit judges dismissed Ames’ cases, stating that she did not meet this requirement.
Justice Elena Kagan seemed perplexed by the argument that the requirement did not hold Ames to a higher standard, referencing the lower court’s opinion that suggested that if Ames were part of a minority group, the evidence she brought forth would have been enough to establish the legitimacy of her case.
Gaiser said his counsel was “not defending the exact language” of the lower court’s decision.
Kagan said that Gaiser’s somewhat wavering position on the lower court’s ruling presented a “peculiar situation.” “I don’t exactly know what to make of this,” she said.
In response to the discrimination lawsuit, many legal organizations opposed to identity-based policies and programs filed briefs supporting of Ames.
“It is strategically unwise to try to defend the standard just because courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been very, very explicit on the fact that race ought not matter in life,” said William Trachman, an attorney from Mountain States Legal Foundation, which filed a brief on behalf of Ames.
In the respondent’s brief, the Ohio department said that if the court finds that majority-group plaintiffs are, in fact, held to a higher burden of proof under the “background circumstances” requirement, the court should hold all plaintiffs to a higher burden, rather than lower the standards.
During the oral arguments, Ames’ attorney, Xiao Wang, conceded 10 minutes of his time to Assistant to the Solicitor General Ashley Robertson, after the Biden administration submitted a brief supporting Ames.
“That heightened standard risks screening out cases with merit and complicates litigation,” Robertson said.
Wang emphasized that a prima facie case only requires a petition to bring forth some amount of evidence that can raise suspicion of discrimination and that more specific evidence may be brought once the case reaches the court.
When Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Wang if such loose requirements would open the “floodgates” to Title VII lawsuits, Wang replied that the other circuits without the “background circumstances” requirement do not experience that issue.
As the Trump administration axes diversity, equity and inclusion programs, Ames’ appeal marks the first reverse discrimination case to go before the highest court since the president took office last month.
Christopher Barnewolt, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief supporting Ames, said the question before the court incorrectly assumed that it is “unusual” for majority groups to face discrimination.
“DEI and affirmative action policies are extremely strong evidence against this theory of majority group privilege,” he said. “It’s a very concrete example of people in our society being treated differently based on their background and being given benefits based on minority membership.”
The court is expected to reach its decision in the summer.
“We’re fairly optimistic that almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle here are more or less on the same page,” Barnewolt said when predicting the court would rule in favor of Ames.