Source: US Whitehouse
President Donald J. Trump’s One, Big, Beautiful Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to cut spending, fuel growth, and level the fiscal footing of the American economy.
Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, explains the bill’s historic nature:
“The Big Beautiful Bill is NOT an annual budget bill and does not fund the departments of government. It does not finance our agencies or federal programs. Instead, it includes the single largest welfare reform in American history. Along with the largest tax cut and reform in American history. The most aggressive energy exploration in American history. And the strongest border bill in American history. All while reducing the deficit.”
Miller goes on to explain how the legislation also reduces the deficit:
“The bill saves more than 1.6 TRILLION in mandatory spending, including the largest-ever welfare reform. A remarkable achievement. I’ve also seen claims the bill increases the deficit. This lie is based on a CBO accounting gimmick. Income tax rates from the 2017 tax cut are set to expire in September. They were always planned to be permanent. CBO says maintaining *current* rates adds to the deficit, but by definition leaving these income tax rates unchanged cannot add one penny to the deficit. The bill’s spending cuts REDUCE the deficit against the current law baseline, which is the only correct baseline to use.”
Meanwhile, Peter Navarro, Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, explains why so-called “forecasts” fail to account for the bill’s contributions to economic growth and debt reduction:
“In making its projections, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] has refused to account for — or ‘score’ as they say in CBO lingo — any of the new revenues from the Trump reciprocal tariffs.
Remember here a key goal of Trump’s fair-trade policies is to shift the U.S. tax base from one primarily reliant on income taxes to one that, with the vision of the new External Revenue Service, is also supported by tariff revenues. Consider, then, the impacts on the CBO’s projected revenue shortfall of just the modest 10 percent global baseline tariff Trump recently put into effect.
Such a tariff, depending on consumer responses (as measured by demand elasticities) and enforcement efficacy (i.e., how much cheating occurs), should generate between $2.3 trillion and $3.3 trillion in additional revenue over the ten-year forecast period. When this revenue is layered onto the enhanced dynamic growth scenario, the projected budget impact from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act ranges from a modest $300 billion increase in the debt under the 2.2 percent growth assumption to as much as a $2 trillion surplus under the 2.7 percent growth assumption.”
Town Hall Follows House Vote to Gut Critical Programs New Mexicans Rely On
Albuquerque, N.M. – U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and U.S. Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) held a town hall in Albuquerque on Tuesday to sound the alarm on Republican-led efforts to gut critical federal programs that New Mexicans rely on, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP.
The town hall followed a House vote advancing legislation that would slash billions from health care and food assistance programs while delivering trillions in tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans. New Mexicans packed the event to hear directly from Senator Luján and Representative Stansbury and to raise concerns about the devastating impact these Republican-led proposals would have on New Mexico families. Senator Luján and Representative Stansbury denounced the Republican proposal and warned that the legislation would impose the biggest cut to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in American history.
“This Republican-led bill is a total rip-off for New Mexicans – all to line the pockets of people like President Trump and Elon Musk,” said Senator Ben Ray Luján. “The Republicans’ priorities couldn’t be more clear: tax handouts for billionaires and massive corporations, paid for by cutting health care, food assistance, and benefits for New Mexicans. We are not backing down. In the Senate, I’m going to keep fighting for our seniors, our children, and the future of New Mexico.”
“We are in the fight of our lives for our communities, our democracy, and to make life better for our people. Every day, I am deeply honored to be in this fight for New Mexico alongside Senator Luján and our entire congressional delegation. Together we are working to defend our rights and Constitution and to tackle our biggest challenges from healthcare, housing and education to caring for our veterans and protecting our lands and waters,” said Representative Melanie Stansbury. “I am grateful to everyone who showed up to our Town Hall and who is speaking up and speaking out against the GOPs disastrous reconciliation bill which will gut Medicaid and food assistance for millions of Americans. As this bill heads to the Senate and the GOP continues to gut programs, we need you in this fight.”
Impacts of the House GOP legislation include:
Cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, jeopardizing health care access for millions;
Cuts to SNAP, reducing food assistance for children, families, and seniors;
Many Americans making less than $51,000 a year will lose money;
Delivers 65% of benefits to the wealthiest Americans;
According to a study by Wharton, the Republicans’ plan will add $4.6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
Headline: Secretary Noem Releases Statement After ICE Arrests Illegal Alien who Threatened to Assassinate President Donald J
Trump
ASHINGTON – Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem released the following statement after U
S
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested an illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump
“Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars,” said Secretary Kristi Noem
“This threat comes not even a year after President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania and less than two weeks after former FBI Director Comey called for the President’s assassination
All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on President Trump’s life and tone down their rhetoric
I will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure the protection of President Trump
” On May 21, an ICE field intelligence officer received a handwritten letter in the mail from Ramon Morales Reyes, in which he promised to self-deport after he used his gun to shoot President Trump in the head at one of his rallies
On May 22, ICE arrested Ramon Morales-Reyes, a 54-year-old illegal alien from Mexico
Morales entered the U
S
illegally at least nine times between 1998-2005
His criminal record includes arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier
He will remain in ICE custody at Dodge County Jail in Juneau, Wisconsin, pending his removal proceedings
President Trump and Secretary Noem are dismantling drug cartels that profit from trafficking, violence, and lawlessness
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Homeland Security released a video featuring the parents of Nicholas Quets, a U.S. Marine Corps Veteran who was viciously murdered by members of the Sinaloa cartel.
On October 18th, 2024, Nicholas Quets traveled to Rocky Point, Mexico, where upon entry, he encountered a Sinaloa cartel checkpoint. These cartel members attempted to steal his pickup truck before shooting him in the back through his heart, ultimately taking his life at just 31 years old.
President Trump and Secretary Noem have taken decisive action to dismantle drug cartels. On President Trump’s first day in office, he signed an executive order to designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. This designation expands law enforcement and the government’s ability to crack down on cartels’ drug and sex trafficking operations in the U.S.
On what would have been Nicholas Quets’ 32nd birthday, the Treasury Department announced sanctions against six individuals and seven entities allegedly involved in a money-laundering network supporting the Sinaloa cartel.
Earlier this month, HSI along with the help of the Mexican government arrested Jacobo Regalado “J3” a high-ranking member of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico. He is responsible for hundreds of homicides and smuggling illicit drugs into the U.S.
Additionally, earlier this month, Pedro Inzunza Noriega and Pedro Inzunza Coronel, key leaders of the Beltran Leyva Organization (BLO), a powerful and violent faction of the Sinaloa cartel that is believed to be the world’s largest known fentanyl production network, were charged with narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and money laundering.
“Nicholas Quets was a patriot who served our country honorably and was killed by these cartel cowards who shot him in the back. President Trump and Secretary Noem are honoring his memory by dismantling the Sinaloa cartel and other drug cartels that profit from trafficking, violence, and lawlessness,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “President Trump’s strong leadership and these arrests and prosecutions of scum-of-the-earth cartel leaders are delivering results. The days of unchecked cartel violence are over.”
WASHINGTON – Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem released the following statement after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested an illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump.
“Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars,”said Secretary Kristi Noem. “This threat comes not even a year after President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania and less than two weeks after former FBI Director Comey called for the President’s assassination. All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on President Trump’s life and tone down their rhetoric. I will continue to take all measures necessary to ensure the protection of President Trump.”
On May 21, an ICE field intelligence officer received a handwritten letter in the mail from Ramon Morales Reyes, in which he promised to self-deport after he used his gun to shoot President Trump in the head at one of his rallies.
On May 22, ICE arrested Ramon Morales-Reyes, a 54-year-old illegal alien from Mexico.
Morales entered the U.S. illegally at least nine times between 1998-2005. His criminal record includes arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier.
He will remain in ICE custody at Dodge County Jail in Juneau, Wisconsin, pending his removal proceedings.
Source: United States Senator for New York Charles E Schumer
New Data Shows Border Crossings Across Upstate NY Are Nose-Diving As Trump’s Tariffs And Ludicrous Comments On Annexing Canada Drive Away Tourists, Putting Billions For NY’s Main Streets At Risk, Jeopardizing Jobs, & Restricting The Summer Tourism Economy
Schumer Says NY House Republicans Must Stand Up For Upstate NY And The Main Street Hotels, Restaurants & Shops Across NY That Rely On Canadian Tourists And Are Seeing Major Hits To Their Bottom Lines – The House Needs To Act On The Senate-Passed Bill To End Tariff War With Canada
Schumer: Trump Tariff War & Destructive Comments Are Burning Bridges With Canada, And Blowing A Massive Hole In Upstate NY’s Tourism Economy
With summer tourism season kicking off and Canadians canceling trips to the United States at record rates because of Trump’s mistreatment of our closest ally and trading partner, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer today revealed new data on how Trump’s reckless tariff war is causing border crossings to plummet across all major land ports of entry in Upstate New York. According to Customs & Border Patrol (CBP), almost 290,000 fewer travelers crossed the Upstate New York-Canadian border last month than over the same period in 2024, a whopping 22% decrease.
“Burning bridges and ruining relationships with our closest ally and key trading partner, Canada, right when summer tourism season is arriving, is about as destructive as it gets. Upstate NY is on the frontlines of Trump’s destructive tariff war, and this shocking new data shows our tourism economy is paying the price from Buffalo to Ogdensburg,” said Leader Schumer. “Instead of lowering costs, Trump’s tariffs are raising prices for families and driving away tourists who spend billions in our shops, hotels, restaurants, and support thousands of NY jobs. If this trend of depressed tourism continues, this could be a summer in Upstate NY that no small business wants to remember.”
According to new data from CBP, Upstate NY & Canada saw approximately 1,017,500 border crossings in April, compared to 1,307,381 during the same month in 2024, a nearly 22% decrease across road and bridge crossings frequented by tourists. A breakdown bridge-by-bridge from the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association shows just how steeply tourism is declining across all the major land ports of entry between Upstate NY and Canada:
NY-Canada Bridge
Region
April 2024 Auto Crossings
April 2025 Auto Crossings
Percentage Decline
Peace Bridge
Western NY
366,159
309,317
15.52%
Rainbow Bridge
Western NY
174,395
119,265
31.61%
Lewiston-Queenstown Bridge
Western NY
239,645
204,222
14.78%
Whirlpool Rapids Bridge
Western NY
32,211
25,377
21.22%
Ogdensburg-Prescott International Bridge
North Country
43,945
31,857
27.51%
Thousand Islands Bridge
North Country
147,814
117,953
20.20%
Seaway Bridge
North Country
209,524
205,518
1.91%
Schumer said this steep drop is alarming and called on NY House Republicans to stand up for their constituents and Main Street small businesses – like hotels, restaurants and shops – and take up the resolution which has already passed the Senate to end this reckless, ill-conceived and harmful trade war with Canada.
Schumer added, “This should be a bright red alarm for NY House Republicans who have stayed silent as Trump’s reckless trade war has wreaked havoc in their districts. To add insult to injury, he makes absurd declarations on annexing our neighbors to the north, which only depresses travel to the U.S. and the purchase of American products. NY House Republicans need to stand up for Upstate NY and should take up the bill which has already passed the Senate to end this reckless trade war with Canada and restore our cherished, friendly and economically dynamic relationship with our next-door neighbor.”
Across Upstate NY, businesses are already seeing the impacts of fewer Canadian tourists and are worried that it will get worse, and Upstate New York would feel the impact of this decline first and harder than nearly anywhere else in the country. In Western New York, Canadian tourism is nearly 40% of the overall tourism economy in Buffalo. In Central New York, Visit Syracuse says web traffic from Canadians is down by half this year creating major worry for the summer season, approximately 15% of tourism dollars spent in the Syracuse area come from Canadian visitors.
According to a recent North Country Chamber of Commerce survey, 66% of businesses are already experiencing a dip in Canadian bookings. Canada is the top source of international visitors to the U.S., with 20.4 million visits in 2024, generating $20.5 billion in spending and supporting 140,000 American jobs. Schumer said if there were even a 10% reduction in Canadian travel, it could mean as much as $2 billion in lost spending and 14,000 job losses across America.
“The Peace Bridge, as a self-funded agency, is reliant on tolls generated by cross border traffic to provide service to the travelling public. We were just beginning to approach normal traffic volumes following the border restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 Pandemic,” said Ron Rienas, Chief Executive Officer of the Peace Bridge Authority. “The decline of car and truck traffic directly impacts our bottom line and that of every international crossing and hampers the ability to make investments to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and commerce.”
“As Town Supervisor of Plattsburgh, and through ongoing discussions with leaders from other border communities on both sides, I have witnessed firsthand the devastating impact tariffs are having on our region. The sharp decline in Canadian visitors is hurting families, small businesses, hotels, marinas, golf courses, restaurants, and workers who depend on cross-border tourism to make a living. Beyond the economic toll, these tariffs are eroding the cultural ties that have connected our communities for generations,” said Michael S. Cashman, Plattsburgh Town Supervisor. “This isn’t about politics it’s about real people and the survival of our border region. The harmful rhetoric labeling Canada as a ‘51st state’ only deepens divisions. Canada is our oldest ally and closest friend, and our economies and cultures have long been intertwined for the benefit of us all.”
Since taking office in January, Trump has damaged the United States’ relationship with Canada by threatening to annex Canada and levying 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. Schumer said this new data on major reductions in bridge crossings shows Trump’s threats to annex Canada and tariff Canadian goods are directly impacting commerce between the two countries, including Canadian tourism across New York State.
Schumer said he is fighting to end this unnecessary, damaging trade war with Canada and protect tourism, small businesses, and local jobs. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution to end tariffs on Canada, and Schumer said this new shocking data shows the urgency for House Republicans to take up and pass it as well. Senate Democrats are also pushing for tariff exemptions for small businesses and putting an end to Trump’s across-the-board tariffs. Schumer said ending this costly trade war is key to protecting American families from price increases and job losses as a result of tariffs on Canada.
“I am all for addressing trade imbalances, especially with adversaries like China, but these sweeping, ill-conceived tariffs are creating chaos and undermining those goals. Rather than uniting the world against China, Trump has united our allies like Canada against us. The Senate passed a resolution to end this disastrous trade war with Canada, and now it’s time for the House to follow. We need everyone, especially NY House Republicans, to stand up against Trump’s senseless, job-killing trade war that is hurting our tourism industry, New York’s Main Streets, and New Yorkers’ jobs,” concluded Schumer.
Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Lankford
Legislation Promotes Restorative Reproductive Medicine Through Existing Federal Programs
WASHINGTON, DC – US Senators James Lankford (R-OK), chair of the Senate Values Action Team, Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), chair of the Senate Pro-Life Caucus, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), President Pro Tempore and John Cornyn (R-TX)introduced legislation to provide couples with more personalized and effective infertility treatment to help them choose how and when to grow their families.
The Reproductive Empowerment and Support through Optimal Restoration (RESTORE) Act would build support for the 15 to 16 percent of couples in the United States affected by infertility. By utilizing current federal resources to support education, training, and access to care, the bill is designed to be cost-neutral.
“Infertility is one of the most difficult challenges couples can face, and most Americans have either faced or know someone who is facing the difficult journey to have a baby. The RESTORE Act prioritizes addressing the underlying causes of infertility through restorative reproductive medicine. This approach is specifically designed to diagnose and treat a variety of reproductive health conditions in both men and women to restore the long-term health of our families and help them bring the miracle of life into the world,” said Senator Lankford.
“So many couples of today’s childbearing-aged generations face an uphill battle with fertility struggles that are complex and unique to every woman and man. The holistic fertility policy promoted through the RESTORE Act aims to treat the root causes of infertility, many of which stem from chronic conditions and environmental factors that are the focus of President Trump’s MAHA movement,” Senator Hyde-Smith said. “If we are going to truly support women and men who are ready to embrace parenthood, then we should promote substantive fertility solutions that ensure access to restorative reproductive medicine—fully healing couples and empowering them with autonomy over how they start and build their families.”
The legislation specifically aims to address reproductive health conditions that often contribute to infertility and painful menstrual cycles, including endometriosis, adenomyosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, uterine fibroids, blocked fallopian tubes, hormone imbalances, hyperprolactinemia, thyroid conditions, and ovulation dysfunctions.
Key provisions of the RESTORE Act include:
Developing educational tools for women seeking information about reproductive health conditions and restorative reproductive medicine.
Providing training opportunities for medical professionals to learn how to diagnose and treat reproductive health conditions.
Directing the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health to conduct data collection and implement ongoing reports to assess the access women and men have to restorative reproductive medicine and infertility care through proper testing, diagnosis, and treatment of reproductive conditions.
Promoting, through existing funding opportunities in Title X and the HHS Office of Population Affairs, medical training for medical students and professionals who feel called to truly help women and men struggling with reproductive health conditions and infertility.
Advancing lifestyle medicine prescriptions as a method for treating male infertility.
Directing HHS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and all relevant panels to update the diagnostic and procedural codes related to infertility that implement the practice of restorative reproductive medicine.
The RESTORE Act works to address the fertility concerns of our childbearing-aged generations in a cost-effective manner with a holistic approach to healing infertility. First introduced in the 118th Congress, the legislation has been updated to offer more substantive solutions that focus on ensuring access to holistic fertility treatment and restorative reproductive medicine for both women and men.
The legislation is supported by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) Action, Americans United for Life, Ethics & Public Policy Center, Heritage Action for America, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Source: United States Senator MarkWayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma)
“Trump is working all angles on this. This is why Trump makes the ‘Art of the Deal’ right?”
Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) joined Fox News’s Sean Hannity on Hannity to discuss the recent developments in the war in Ukraine and stress that Russia’s President would be a fool to underestimate President Donald J. Trump and America’s return to ‘Peace through Strength’ policies. Highlights below.
Sen. Mullin’s full interview can be found here.
On the consequences President Vladimir Putin faces if he continues down this path of killing:
“He [President Trump] is trying to clean up a mess that he didn’t start. This war would have never taken place if Trump would have been in office, but now it is. He’s been very clear from day one he wanted the killing to stop. He’s tried to work with Putin, his patience is running thin, and you and I know both know President Trump personally. When he’s done with you, he’s done. If Putin continues to push this envelope the way that he is, he’s going to give Zelensky the tools that he needs to fight back with the full-scale, full support of the United States.
On possible Russian sanctions:
“Lindsey Graham, myself, and a few other senators led this sanction bill, but we’ve been holding off because President Trump wanted time to negotiate with Russia. Because the negotiations are breaking down, I can see as soon as soon as were ready to move this bill forward, we’ll be able to pass this in the Senate, we’ll be able to pass this in the House, and President Trump will sign it. The sanctions will cripple Russia’s economy. You’ll see the ruble crash. You’ll see the way they’ve been able to benefit from it, this won’t go.”
On President Trump’s ability to protect American interests:
“Trump is working all angles on this. This is why Trump makes the ‘Art of the Deal’ right? He’s able to back people in corners and because when he’s ready, and the iron’s ripe, he’s able to strike.”
Source: United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore)
May 28, 2025
Washington, D.C. – Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden joined 20 of their Senate colleagues to demand the Trump Administration immediately reverse course on its plan to illegally and unilaterally terminate the ENERGY STAR program. In their letter, the Senators highlight the cost-saving benefits of the program, which is projected to save the average American household $450 on utility bills each year simply by choosing ENERGY STAR certified products.
“For over three decades, the ENERGY STAR program has lowered Americans’ energy bills by informing consumers about energy efficient products. The program has enjoyed bipartisan support since its creation under authority of Section 103 of the Clean Air Act, most recently receiving $35.7 million in fiscal year 2025 appropriations,” wrote the Senators. “Reporting has indicated, however, that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to eliminate ENERGY STAR without Congressional approval. Not only is the program protected under federal statute and thus illegal for the Administration to terminate unilaterally, but this decision also lacks basic economic sense. We write to urge you to immediately reverse course.”
Since 1992, ENERGY STAR has reduced energy costs for American families and businesses by $500 billion, including $42 billion worth of savings in 2020 alone. For every federal dollar spent on ENERGY STAR, Americans have enjoyed $350 in savings.
The Senators continued: “ENERGY STAR is the epitome of an effective public-private partnership. As the program’s administrators, EPA and the Department of Energy set qualifying energy efficiency standards for products. EPA also protects the integrity of the ENERGY STAR brand, ensuring it remains well-known, trusted, and indicative of a quality product. Appliance manufacturers then voluntarily display the ENERGY STAR label, notifying consumers that a product will reduce their energy consumption and lower utility bills. The program strengthens consumer choice by sharing critical product information.”
Administered by the EPA and Department of Energy, ENERGY STAR is a voluntary, market-based program that has saved consumers billions of dollars annually. The ENERGY STAR program has cumulatively reduced four billion metric tons of harmful emissions and currently supports more than 790,000 American jobs manufacturing and installing ENERGY STAR products.
“Eliminating the ENERGY STAR program will not only raise energy costs for American families and businesses, but also inflict far-reaching economic harms, threatening industry jobs and the reliability of the grid at a time of growing demand. We again urge you to immediately reconsider eliminating this popular and effective Congressionally authorized program,” the Senators concluded.
ENERGY STAR is strongly supported by a wide array of manufacturers, homebuilders, housing organizations, building owners, small businesses, and other organizations. In April, the U.S. Real Estate Industry sent a letter to the Trump Administration expressing its strong support for the ENERGY STAR program. Additionally, the U.S. Green Buildings Council partnered with the Alliance to Save Energy in leading over 1,000 organizations in urging the Trump Administration to protect the program and maintain full funding and staffing levels.
The letter was led by U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). In addition to Merkley and Wyden, the letter was signed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Angus King (I-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
Click here to read and download the full letter.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)
May 28, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Representative Norma Torres (CA-35) joined Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44) in sending a letter to President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., urging them to safeguard federal funding for the Head Start program. The letter comes in response to alarming reports that the Trump Administration considered eliminating Head Start funding during recent federal budget discussions.
“From Los Angeles County to the Central Valley to rural tribal lands, Head Start provides comprehensive early learning, health, nutrition, and family support services to children who are disproportionately impacted by poverty and housing instability,” wrote the members. “These essential services support our state’s economy by allowing parents to work and go to school, while giving our future workforce the strong start that they need to be successful later in life.”
California is home to one of the largest populations of Head Start children in the nation. In Fiscal Year 2023 alone, Head Start and Early Head Start programs served more than 94,000 children across the state. These programs offer critical support to children by integrating early education with health, nutrition, and family services—providing targeted support to those experiencing poverty, housing insecurity, and systemic inequities.
“The elimination or reduction of Head Start funding would be catastrophic,” the letter states. “In California, it would shut the doors of 1,835 Head Start and Early Head Start Centers and eliminate access to early education for tens of thousands of children—disproportionately children of color, English learners, children with disabilities, and those living in low-income and rural communities.”
Since its founding in 1965, Head Start has served over 40 million children and families nationwide. Decades of research confirm that the program improves school readiness, boosts long-term academic and employment outcomes, and helps break the cycle of poverty.
“Head Start is not optional—it is a national commitment that must be honored,” the members added. “I will continue fighting to protect this vital investment in our children’s futures.”
The letter was co-signed by each of the 45 Democratic members of the California Congressional Delegation: Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, and Representatives Pete Aguilar, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Garcia, Linda Sánchez, John Garamendi, Kevin Mullin, Mark Takano, Ted Lieu, Julia Brownley, Maxine Waters, Laura Friedman, J. Luis Correa, Ro Khanna, Mike Thompson, Mark DeSaulnier, Juan Vargas, Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr., Judy Chu, Derek Tran, Raul Ruiz, Jared Huffman, Doris Matsui, Salud Carbajal, Brad Sherman, Ami Bera, Jimmy Panetta, Zoe Lofgren, Eric Swalwell, Lateefah Simon, Dave Min, Jimmy Gomez, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Jim Costa, George Whitesides, Luz Rivas, Sara Jacobs, Scott Peters, Josh Harder, Adam Gray, Mike Levin, and Sam Liccardo.
The full letter can be found here and below:
President Trump and Secretary Kennedy:
We write today to express serious concern over reports that your Administration considered proposals to eliminate federal funding for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Head Start program in recent budget discussions. While we are relieved that the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Fiscal Year 2026 proposal did not include this cut, that such an action was even contemplated underscores the vulnerability of this vital program under your Administration. As members of the California Congressional Delegation, we urge you to safeguard this critical program, which plays an irreplaceable role in supporting California’s children and families, especially those facing economic hardship and systemic barriers.
California is home to one of the largest populations of Head Start children in the nation. In Fiscal Year 2023 alone, more than 94,000 children and pregnant women in California were served by Head Start and Early Head Start programs.[1] These services are not just beneficial—they are essential. From Los Angeles County to the Central Valley to rural tribal lands, Head Start provides comprehensive early learning, health, nutrition, and family support services to children who are disproportionately impacted by poverty and housing instability. These essential services support our state’s economy by allowing parents to work and go to school, while giving our future workforce the strong start that they need to be successful later in life.
Since its founding in 1965, Head Start has supported more than 40 million children and their families nationwide—and millions in California alone.[2] Research continues to confirm what educators and parents have long known: Head Start works. It boosts school readiness, improves long-term academic outcomes, increases high school graduation and employment rates, and helps break cycles of generational poverty.
The elimination or reduction of Head Start funding would be catastrophic. In California, it would shut the doors of 1,835 Head Start and Early Head Start Centers and eliminate access to early education for tens of thousands of children—disproportionately children of color, English learners, children with disabilities, and those living in low-income and rural communities.[3] Thousands of parents would also lose their ability to go to work or school, and otherwise participate in the economy.
Head Start is not optional—it is a national commitment that must be honored. For these reasons, we urge you to reject any future attempts to weaken or eliminate this program and to ensure its continued success for the children and families who rely on it every day.
Source: US Whitehouse
From The National Desk:
“President Trump’s proposed tax cuts, encapsulated in the ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill,’ aim to extend the pro-growth and pro-worker legacy of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the White House told exclusively to The National News Desk.
The TCJA previously cut taxes across the board for working families, allowing Americans to allocate more of their earnings toward family, community, and future investments.
This initiative, along with business tax provisions, spurred a blue-collar boom characterized by record-high income gains, record-low poverty, and significant wage increases, particularly for low-wage workers, according to the White House. […]
The ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill,’ according to the White House, seeks to further this growth by creating incentives to expand America’s domestic manufacturing base and providing targeted relief to workers affected by high inflation and sectoral declines.
Some of the key provisions provided by the Trump administration include eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, saving workers approximately $1,675 and up to $1,750 per year.
The bill also proposes temporary full expensing for new factories and lower tax rates on domestic manufacturing to enhance the industrial base and boost economic opportunities.
According to the White House, Enhanced Opportunity Zone incentives are expected to drive over $100 billion in investment, create more than 1 million new jobs, and lead to the development of hundreds of thousands of new homes in distressed communities, particularly in rural areas.
The Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the percentage decline in federal taxes is smaller for the top 1 percent under the bill, resulting in them taking on a greater share of total federal taxes.
The White House says that if the bill fails to pass, it could result in a $4 trillion tax hike, potentially leading to recessionary challenges.”
Click here to read the full story.
Click here to read the report from the Council of Economic Advisers.
In May 2025, a post asking “[Am I the asshole] for telling my husband’s affair partner’s fiancé about their relationship?” quickly received 6,200 upvotes and more than 900 comments on Reddit. This popularity earned the post a spot on Reddit’s front page of trending posts. The problem? It was (very likely) written by artificial intelligence (AI).
The post contained some telltale signs of AI, such as using stock phrases (“[my husband’s] family is furious”) and excessive quotation marks, and sketching an unrealistic scenario designed to generate outrage rather than reflect a genuine dilemma.
While this post has since been removed by the forum’s moderators, Reddit users have repeatedly expressed their frustration with the proliferation of this kind of content.
High-engagement, AI-generated posts on Reddit are an example of what is known as “AI slop” – cheap, low-quality AI-generated content, created and shared by anyone from low-level influencers to coordinated political influence operations.
Estimates suggest that over half of longer English-language posts on LinkedIn are written by AI. In response to that report, Adam Walkiewicz, a director of product at LinkedIn, told Wired it has “robust defenses in place to proactively identify low-quality and exact or near-exact duplicate content. When we detect such content, we take action to ensure it is not broadly promoted.”
But AI-generated low-quality news sites are popping up all over the place, and AI images are also flooding social media platforms such as Facebook. You may have come across images like “shrimp Jesus” in your own feeds.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
AI-generated content is cheap. A report by the Nato StratCom Center of Excellence from 2023 found that for a mere €10 (about £8), you can buy tens of thousands of fake views and likes, and hundreds of AI-generated comments, on almost all major social media platforms.
While much of it is seemingly innocent entertainment, one study from 2024 found that about a quarter of all internet traffic is made up of “bad bots”. These bots, which seek to spread disinformation, scalp event tickets or steal personal data, are also becoming much better at masking as humans.
In short, the world is dealing with the “enshittification” of the web: online services have become gradually worse over time as tech companies prioritise profits over user experience. AI-generated content is just one aspect of this.
From Reddit posts that enrage readers to tearjerking cat videos, this content is extremely attention-grabbing and thus lucrative for both slop-creators and platforms.
This is known as engagement bait – a tactic to get people to like, comment and share, regardless of the quality of the post. And you don’t need to seek out the content to be exposed to it.
One study explored how engagement bait, such as images of cute babies wrapped in cabbage, is recommended to social media users even when they do not follow any AI-slop pages or accounts. These pages, which often link to low-quality sources and promote real or made-up products, may be designed to boost their follower base in order to sell the account later for profit.
Meta (Facebook’s parent company) said in April that it is cracking down on “spammy” content that tries to “game the Facebook algorithm to increase views”, but did not specify AI-generated content. Meta has used its own AI-generated profiles on Facebook, but has since removed some of these accounts.
What the risks are
This may all have serious consequences for democracy and political communication. AI can cheaply and efficiently create misinformation about elections that is indiscernible from human-generated content. Ahead of the 2024 US presidential elections, researchers identified a large influence campaign designed to advocate for Republican issues and attack political adversaries.
And before you think it’s only Republicans doing it, think again: these bots are as biased as humans of all perspectives. A report by Rutgers University found that Americans on all sides of the political spectrum rely on bots to promote their preferred candidates.
Researchers aren’t innocent either: scientists at the University of Zurich were recently caught using AI-powered bots to post on Reddit as part of a research project on whether inauthentic comments can change people’s minds. But they failed to disclose that these comments were fake to Reddit moderators.
Reddit is now considering taking legal action against the university. The company’s chief legal officer said: “What this University of Zurich team did is deeply wrong on both a moral and legal level.”
Political operatives, including from authoritarian countries such as Russia, China and Iran, invest considerable sums in AI-driven operations to influence elections around the democratic world.
How effective these operations are is up for debate. One study found that Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 US elections through social media were a dud, while another found it predicted polling figures for Trump. Regardless, these campaigns are becoming much more sophisticated and well-organised.
And even seemingly apolitical AI-generated content can have consequences. The sheer volume of it makes accessing real news and human-generated content difficult.
What’s to be done?
Malign AI content is proving to be extremely hard to spot by humans and computers alike. Computer scientists recently identified a bot network of about 1,100 fake X accounts posting machine-generated content (mostly about cryptocurrency) and interacting with each other through likes and retweets. Problematically, the Botometer (a tool they developed to detect bots) failed to identify these accounts as fake.
The use of AI is relatively easy to spot if you know what to look for, particularly when content is formulaic or unapologetically fake. But it’s much harder when it comes to short-form content (for example, Instagram comments) or high-quality fake images. And the technology used to create AI slop is quickly improving.
As close observers of AI trends and the spread of misinformation, we would love to end on a positive note and offer practical remedies to spot AI slop or reduce its potency. But in reality, many people are simply jumping ship.
Dissatisfied with the amount of AI slop, social media users are escaping traditional platforms and joining invite-only online communities. This may lead to further fracturing of our public sphere and exacerbate polarisation, as the communities we seek out are often comprised of like-minded individuals.
As this sorting intensifies, social media risks devolving into mindless entertainment, produced and consumed mostly by bots who interact with other bots while us humans spectate. Of course, platforms don’t want to lose users, but they might push as much AI slop as the public can tolerate.
Some research also shows promise in helping people to better identify deepfakes, but research is in its early stages.
Overall, we are just starting to realise the scale of the problem. Soberingly, if humans drown in AI slop, so does AI: AI models trained on the “enshittified” internet are likely to produce garbage.
Jon Roozenbeek has received funding from the UK Cabinet Office, the US State Department, the ESRC, Google, the American Psychological Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, EU Horizon 2020, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Alfred Landecker Foundation.
Sander van der Linden has received funding from the UK Cabinet Office, Google, the American Psychological Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, EU Horizon 2020, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Alfred Landecker Foundation.
Yara Kyrychenko receives funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and is supported by the Alan Turing Institute’s Enrichment Scheme.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Johann Kirsten, Director of the Bureau for Economic Research, Stellenbosch University
When world leaders engage, the assumption is always that they engage on issues based on verified facts, which their administrative staff are supposed to prepare. Under this assumption, we thought the meeting at the White House on 21 May between South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, and US president Donald Trump would follow this pattern.
Issues of agriculture, farming and land (and rural crime) were central to the discussions. What is clear to us as agricultural economists is that the skewed views expressed by Trump about these issues originate in South Africa. This includes Trump’s statement: “But Blacks are not farmers.”
In our work as agricultural economists, we have, in many pieces and books (our latest titled The Uncomfortable Truth about South Africa’s Agriculture), tried to present South Africans with the real facts about the political economy policy reforms and structural dimensions of South African agriculture.
Writing on these matters was necessary given that official data – agricultural census 2017, as well as the official land audit of 2017 – all provide an incomplete picture of the real state and structure of South African agriculture. The reason is that the agricultural census, which is supposed to provide a comprehensive and inclusive assessment of the size and structure of the primary agricultural sector, and the land audit, which was supposed to record the ownership of all land in South Africa, are incomplete in their coverage.
The incomplete and inaccurate official data provides fertile ground for radical statements by the left and the right – and novices on social media. This is why South Africa has to deal with falsehoods coming from the US. These include Trump’s statement that black people are not farmers in South Africa.
South Africa is to blame for providing inaccurate data to feed these false narratives.
The facts presented here should allow a more nuanced interpretation of South Africa’s farm structure. Firstly, there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. And not all white commercial farm operations are “large-scale”, and not all black farmers are “small-scale”, “subsistence” or “emerging”. Most farm operations can be classified as micro, or small in scale.
This is important so that one doesn’t view South Africa’s agriculture as mainly white farmers. Indeed, we are a country of two agricultures with black farmers mainly at small scale and accounting for roughly 10% of the commercial agricultural output. Still, this doesn’t mean they are not active in the sector. They mainly still require support to expand and increase output, but they are active.
The facts
In the wake of the circus in the Oval Office, we were amazed by the total silence of the many farmers’ organisations in South Africa. We have not seen one coming out to reject all of Trump’s claims. The only thing we can deduce from this is that these falsehoods suit the political position of some farmer organisations. But at what cost? Will many of their members be harmed by trade sanctions or tariffs against South Africa? The US is an important market for South Africa’s agriculture, accounting for 4% of the US$13.7 billion exports in 2024.
When Ramaphosa highlighted the fact that crime, and rural crime in particular, has an impact on all South Africans and that more black people than white people are being killed, Trump’s response was disturbing, to say the least: “But Blacks are not farmers”. This requires an immediate fact check.
We returned to the text from our chapter in the Handbook on the South African Economy we jointly prepared in 2021. In the extract below, we discuss the real numbers of farmers in South Africa and try to provide a sensible racial classification of farmers to denounce Trump’s silly statement.
As highlighted earlier, the two latest agricultural censuses (2007 and 2017) are incomplete as they restricted the sample frame to farm businesses registered to pay value added tax. Only firms with a turnover of one million rands (US$55,500) qualify for VAT registration.
We were able to expand the findings from the censuses with numbers from the 2011 population census and the 2016 community survey to better understand the total number of commercial farming units in South Africa. The Community Survey 2016 is a large-scale survey that happened between Censuses 2011 and 2021. The main objective was to provide population and household statistics at municipal level to government and the private sector, to support planning and decision-making.
Data from the 2011 population census (extracted from three agricultural questions included in the census) shows that 2,879,638 households out of South Africa’s total population, or 19.9% of all households, were active in agriculture for subsistence or commercial purposes.
Only 2% of these active households reported an annual income derived from agriculture above R307,000 (US$17,000). This translates into 57,592 households that can be considered commercial farmers, with agriculture as the main or only source of household income. This corresponds in some way with the 40,122 farming businesses that are registered for VAT as noted in the 2017 agricultural census report.
If we use the numbers from the agricultural census it is evident almost 90% of all VAT-registered commercial farming businesses could be classified as micro or small-scale enterprises. If the farm businesses excluded from the census are accounted for under the assumption that they are too small for VAT registration, then the fact still stands that the vast majority of all farm enterprises in South Africa are small family farms.
There are, however, 2,610 large farms (with turnover exceeding R22.5 million (US$1.2 million per annum) which are responsible for 67% of farm income and employed more than half the agricultural labour force of 757,000 farm workers in 2017.
Another way to get to farm numbers is to use the 2016 Community Survey. Using the shares as shown in Table 2, we estimate there are 242,221 commercial farming households in South Africa, of which only 43,891 (18%) are white commercial farmers. (This is very much in line with the VAT registered farmers but also acknowledging the fact that many white farm businesses are not necessarily registered for VAT.)
Let’s consider only the agricultural households with agriculture as their main source of income, surveyed in the 2016 community survey. We end up with a total of 132,700 households, of whom 93,000 (70%) are black farmers. This reality is something that policy makers and farm organisations find very difficult to deal with and it seems that Trump also found this too good to be true.
We have tried here in a long winded way to deal with farm numbers and how to get to a race classification of farmers in South Africa. In the end we trust that we have managed to show that there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. Their share in total output is smaller than that of their white counterparts. The National Agricultural Marketing Council puts black farmers’ share of agricultural production as roughly 10%. But these numbers are also incomplete and largely an undercount.
It will always be challenging to get to the real number of black farmers’ share of agricultural output as nobody would ever know whether the potato or the cabbage on the shelf came from a farm owned by a black farmer or a white person but operated by a black farmer, for example. As South Africans know, the labour on farms, in pack houses, distribution systems and retail are all black. So, the sweat and hard work of black South African workers are integral to the food supply chain in South Africa.
Let’s get these facts straight and promote them honestly.
– Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong – https://theconversation.com/most-south-african-farmers-are-black-why-trump-got-it-so-wrong-257668
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Full-year continuing resolution (CR) requires each agency to submit a spend plan showing how they are executing FY25 appropriations—many agencies have failed to submit acceptable plans, or to submit one altogether
Washington, D.C. — Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair, and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee, sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought calling out the Trump administration’s unacceptable failure to submit detailed spend plans for each agency to the Appropriations Committees, as the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2025 requires by law.
Agencies’ spend plans should provide more granular details about how they are spending funding appropriated for the fiscal year. The spend plans are critical to congressional oversight and the annual appropriations process, and have long been required by law. But as Murray and DeLauro write, the Trump administration has failed to submit adequate spend plans to Congress—and it has even failed to submit any spend plan for some agencies.
“Under your direction, the Office of Management and Budget continues to intentionally mislead and obfuscate about how this Administration is spending taxpayer dollars and has demonstrated an inability to effectively and efficiently manage public resources. Your lack of transparency shows disdain for the right of the public to understand how taxpayer dollars are being spent and for the rule of law,” write Murray and DeLauro. Noting how Director Vought has already taken down the OMB website making federal spending allocations public, the top Democrats write: “You have further degraded Congress’s capacity to carry out its legislative responsibilities by overseeing the development of inconsistent and inadequate spending plans for fiscal year 2025 submitted by departments and agencies.”
Noting that Section 1113 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2025 requires spend plans for agencies to be submitted within 45 days of enactment of the law, Murray and DeLauro state: “[T]hese spending plans were due to the Appropriations Committees on Tuesday, April 29. Four weeks have now come and gone, and while the Committees began receiving some spending plans from departments and agencies consistent with the 45-day requirement, many agencies’ plans still have yet to be submitted or blatantly omit basic funding details at your agency’s direction.”
“The widespread failure of departments and agencies to abide by the requirements of section 1113 is unacceptable, and the lack of transparency begs serious questions about what exactly this administration is seeking to hide from the Committees – and the American people,” they continue. “These spending plans are essential to understand how the executive branch is spending taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2025, and they directly inform the legislative responsibilities of the Committees to consider fiscal year 2026 appropriations legislation, a process that is already underway.”
Murray and DeLauro underscore that some agencies still have yet to submit their fiscal year 2025 spend plan, as required by law, and many others have submitted completely inadequate plans. “For example,” they write, “the spend plan submitted for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the label ‘Hill Version’ in the PDF name, includes only high-level funding amounts and does not provide funding levels for hundreds of specific programs and activities. Instead, it lists 530 asterisks in place of details about how this administration is choosing to fund—or not fund—hundreds of programs that the American people count on every day. We need to see the ‘real version’ of HHS’ spend plan, and we need to see actual funding amounts—not asterisks—for these vital programs.”
They conclude by demanding spend plans with sufficient information be submitted for each agency by the end of the month.
The full letter is available HERE and below:
May 27, 2025
The Honorable Russell T. Vought
Director
The Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20503
Director Vought:
Under your direction, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) continues to intentionally mislead and obfuscate about how this Administration is spending taxpayer dollars and has demonstrated an inability to effectively and efficiently manage public resources.
Your lack of transparency shows disdain for the right of the public to understand how taxpayer dollars are being spent and for the rule of law. It is well-documented that you are – by your own admission in your March 29 letter – intentionally violating legal requirements in order to hide OMB’s apportionment decisions from the public and from Congress. This not only deprives the public of information they are entitled to in law but also undermines Congress’s ability to carry out its legislative and oversight functions. You have further degraded Congress’s capacity to carry out its legislative responsibilities by overseeing the development of inconsistent and inadequate spending plans for fiscal year 2025 submitted by departments and agencies under section 1113(a) of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025. That reporting requirement states:
Sec. 1113. (a) Not later than 45 days after the date of the enactment of this division, each department and agency in subsection (c) shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate a spending, expenditure, or operating plan for fiscal year 2025—
(1) at the program, project, or activity level (or, for foreign assistance programs funded in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, at the country, regional, and central program level, and for any international organization); or
(2) as applicable, at any greater level of detail required for funds covered by such a plan in an appropriations Act referred to in section 1101, in the joint explanatory statement accompanying such Act, or in committee report language incorporated by reference in such joint explanatory statement.
In accordance with section 1113, these spending plans were due to the Appropriations Committees on Tuesday, April 29. Four weeks have now come and gone, and while the Committees began receiving some spending plans from departments and agencies consistent with the 45-day requirement, many agencies’ plans still have yet to be submitted or blatantly omit basic funding details at your agency’s direction. These spending plans were coordinated through, shaped, and approved by OMB.
For example, the spend plan submitted for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the label “Hill Version” in the pdf name, includes only high-level funding amounts and does not provide funding levels for hundreds of specific programs and activities. Instead, it lists 530 asterisks in place of details about how this administration is choosing to fund – or not fund – hundreds of programs that the American people count on every day. We need to see the “real version” of HHS’ spend plan, and we need to see actual funding amounts – not asterisks – for these vital programs.
Similarly, the Department of Education’s spend plan submitted on April 29th completely omitted dozens of specific programs and activities and claimed that almost $13 billion was “unallocated” despite the fact that much of that funding is directed in statute for specific purposes, just as it was in fiscal year 2024. The Department sent a revised spend plan on May 23rd that still includes $8 billion in “unallocated” funding and continues to lack detail on dozens of programs now with only four months left in the fiscal year.
The widespread failure of departments and agencies to abide by the requirements of section 1113 is unacceptable, and the lack of transparency begs serious questions about what exactly this administration is seeking to hide from the Committees – and the American people. These spending plans are essential to understand how the executive branch is spending taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2025, and they directly inform the legislative responsibilities of the Committees to consider fiscal year 2026 appropriations legislation, a process that is already underway.
As the House and Senate Appropriations Committees intend to mark up the fiscal year 2026 bills next month, we demand that by the end of this month you comply with section 1113 and ensure that all spending plans contain sufficient information to demonstrate how each department and agency intends to prudently obligate all amounts provided by Congress for fiscal year 2025 within their period of availability and resubmit them to the Committees.
Sincerely,
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)
WASHINGTON — This morning, Speaker Johnson joined CNN’s State of the Union, Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, and CBS News’ Face the Nation to discuss the historic, House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act and outlined the necessity of sending the final bill to President Trump’s desk by July 4.
Watch Speaker Johnson on CNNhere, Fox Newshere, and CBShere.
On working with the Senate:
I’ve been very consistent with our colleagues in the Senate. We worked hand in glove with them all through this process, remembering that the House began this more than a year ago, it was March of last year when we got our committee chairs together and told them to begin to prepare for this massive reconciliation package. We believed at that time, more than a year ago, that we would win the White House and Senate and the House and have unified government and have this, really once in a generation opportunity to do so much in one piece of legislation.
I met with the Senate Republicans, all my colleagues over there last week on Tuesday at their weekly luncheon. And I encouraged them to do their work, of course as we all anticipate, but to make as few modifications to this package as possible, remembering that we’ve got to pass it one more time to ratify their changes in the House. And I have a very delicate balance here, a very delicate equilibrium that we’ve reached over a long period of time, and it’s best not to meddle with it too much.
On getting the One Big Beautiful Bill passed by July 4:
The reason I tried to get this done, and we did get it done, before Memorial Day and send it to the Senate is so the President can be signing this into law by Independence Day on July 4th. Why is that so important? Because we’ve got to get relief to the American people and that we also need to, for political purposes, give a lot of time, enough time for everyone to see that this package actually is what we say. It’s going to help the country, it’s going help the economy, it’s going to help all boats to rise, just as we did after the first two years of the first Trump administration. And so we’re anxious to get this signed into law so people feel it and see it before that midterm election, and they understand it is the Republicans who are doing the best for hardworking Americans, low-income families, and everyone who deserves a better shot.
On Democrat falsehoods around Republican efforts to strengthen Medicaid:
We have not cut Medicaid, and we have not cut SNAP. What we’re doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste, and abuse. And everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that that’s a responsibility of Congress. Just in Medicaid, for example, you’ve got 1.4 million illegal aliens receiving those benefits. That is not what Medicaid is intended for. It’s intended for vulnerable populations, for young single pregnant women and, and the elderly and the disabled and people who desperately need those resources. Right now, they’re being drained by fraud, waste, and abuse.
You got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide, who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system. If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system, you’re cheating the system, and no one in the country believes that that’s right. So, there’s a moral component to what we’re doing. And when you make young men work, it’s good for them. It’s good for their dignity, it’s good for their self-worth and it’s good for the community that they live in.
On criticism of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act:
Well, I agree wholeheartedly with what my dear friend Rand Paul said. I love his conviction, and I share it. The national debt is the greatest threat to our national security and deficits are a serious problem. What I think Rand is missing on this one is the fact that we are quite serious about this. This is the biggest spending cut, Shannon, in more than 30 years. We’re going to cut one over $1.5 trillion in spending, it’s a big leap forward. The last time we had a spending cut was three decades ago, and it was only $800 billion even adjusted for inflation. This is the biggest spending cut, I think, in the history of government, on planet Earth. Now, is it enough? Of course not. But we have a very delicate balance, and we have to start the process.
I liken this to an aircraft carrier. You don’t turn an aircraft carrier on a dime. It takes a mile of open ocean. And so, it took us decades to get into this situation. This is a big step to begin to turn that aircraft carrier. One important point about what he said, it sounds like his biggest objection is the fact that we are extending the debt ceiling. That’s a critically important thing to do. We have to do it. We’re not going to get any Democrats to assist on that. So, to get it through the Senate and make sure we don’t crash the US economy and default on our debts for the first time in history, it has to be part of the reconciliation package. And that’s why the President Trump and all the other Republicans in Congress, House and Senate understand the necessity of this.
Important point here. It does not mean that we’re going to spend more money. We’re extending the debt ceiling to show to creditors, the bond markets, the stock market, that the Congress is serious about this. President Trump is dialed in 100%. He is a visionary leader. He does not want to spend more money… Russ Vought is the director of the Office of Management and Budget, long seen as a strict fiscal hawk, as I liken myself to be as well. And Rand Paul is one who has applauded and said great things about Russ Vought’s perspective. Russ said about two weeks ago that the criticism on fiscal grounds about this bill is profoundly inaccurate.
Source: United States Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock – Georgia
ICYMI From the Albany Herald: Dougherty County, Rural Georgia Would be Hard-hit by SNAP Cuts in Proposed Budget
Senator Reverend Warnock spoke to the Albany Herald about the social and economic impact that GOP cuts to federal nutrition programs would have on rural Georgians as a result of their new spending bill
The SNAP program helps millions of working families across the country with their grocery bill each month. Every dollar in federal investment generates $1.79 in economic activity. In 2023, stores and retailers in Georgia saw revenues of over $3.6 billion from SNAP benefits
Senator Reverend Warnock: “It makes no sense to take the food out of the mouths of poor, rural children to give tax cuts to rich folks. It’s people in the middle…it’s hard-working people who will feel the impact”
Washington, D.C. – In an interview with the Albany Herald, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) warned rural Georgians that the elderly, people with disabilities, children, farmers, and small business owners will be those most impacted by cuts to key nutrition programs in Washington Republicans’ new spending bill. Senator Warnock stressed that cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps millions of working families afford groceries, would hit rural Georgians hardest because the majority of Georgia counties with the highest rates of families who rely on SNAP are rural. As a result, rural economies receive a larger lift from the program than many of their counterparts in metro-Atlanta.
“There are people who work every single day and are still food-insecure,” said Senator Reverend Warnock. “Poor people don’t have lobbyists. Billionaires and corporations do. You are seeing in this request the outsize impact of money and power in our politics.”
On May 22, 2025, Senator Warnock published a white paper exposing the hidden harm of Washington Republicans’ plan to pay for their tax cut to billionaires by shifting the cost of nutrition assistance to the states, ultimately making it harder for Georgia families to cover their grocery bill. The report finds that Georgia families would suffer the most under the GOP spending bill with a projected loss of over $860 million, disproportionately affecting Georgia’s rural communities.
SNAP helps vulnerable families supplement their budget by just $6.16 per day and lifts millions of Americans out of poverty each year. In 2023, stores and retailers in Georgia saw over $3.6 billion in revenue thanks to SNAP, helping local grocery stores keep their doors open.
“The thing I want to emphasize is it will be rural Georgians impacted,” said Sen. Warnock. “What we will see is huge cuts in benefits. Small communities will be particularly hard hit. In Dougherty County, more than a third (of residents) are on SNAP. It will be a great impact to the local economy.”
Hours after Senator Warnock published his report, Washington Republicans passed their $4.5 trillion spending bill through the House of Representatives. According to the House Republicans’ bill provisions advanced by the House Agriculture Committee on May 14, 2025, beginning in 2028, Washington Republicans would require all states to pay a 5% cost-share, shifting the burden from the federal government to the states. However, most states have higher payment error rates, like Georgia, and would have to pay even more.
Georgia could be on the hook for $867 million in new costs on the state budget, leaving children, seniors, and disabled people more likely to be unable to afford groceries.
The full article can be found HEREand below:
ALBANY – Georgia’s elderly, disabled and children, as well as farmers, would be the casualties of a congressional spending bill that made its way through the House early Thursday morning.
That’s the assessment of U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock concerning the “big beautiful bill” backed by President Trump that will now advance to the Senate. Georgia’s potential loss would be $860 million in food assistance.
“Small communities will be particularly hard hit,” Georgia’s junior senator said of the legislation, which also contains reductions in Medicaid spending. “It’s an unfunded mandate that shifts the cut to the state. What we will see is huge cuts in benefits.”
On Thursday, the senator released an analysis of the potential impact on residents of the Peach State. Among his takeaways are that 1.4 million Georgians rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), with more than 69% of participants in 694,000 households being families with children. More than 28% of SNAP recipients were in households with family members who are elderly or disabled.
In addition, state residents in rural areas are disproportionately likely to benefit from SNAP, with more than 77% of counties with the highest SNAP participation being rural. Between 2015 and 2019 SNAP lifted 250,000 Georgians, including 112,000 children, out of poverty each year, according to Warnock’s analysis.
“The thing I want to emphasize is it will be rural Georgians impacted,” he said. “In Dougherty County, more than a third (of residents) are on SNAP. It will be a great impact to the local economy.”
Nationally in 2024, of the 42 million Americans who received SNAP benefits, two out of three were either a child, senior citizen or adult with a disability, according to Warnock, and 96% of households of two or more contained at least one child, senior citizen or person with a disability.
In addition to the moral argument, there is also an economic one in that each federal dollar spent on the SNAP program generated $1.79 in economic activity in 2023, accounting for $3.6 billion in revenue at Georgia businesses, according to the senator’s analysis.
“Poor people don’t have lobbyists,” Warnock said. “Billionaires and corporations do. You are seeing in this request the outsize impact of money and power in our politics.
“It makes no sense to take the food out of the mouths of poor, rural children to give tax cuts to rich folks. It’s people in the middle … it’s hard-working people who will feel the impact. There are people who work every single day and are still food-insecure. As a pastor, I will continue to make the moral argument.”
President Donald Trump delivers the commencement address at West Point on May 24, 2025.AP Photo/Adam Gray
President Donald Trump’s speech at the graduation of the class of 2025 from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point included segments that were clearly scripted and portions that were obviously not.
During the unscripted portions, Trump, who wore a bright red “Make America Great Again” campaign hat during his entire appearance on May 24, 2025, delivered remarks that hit many of his frequent partisan political talking points. That included attacking presidential predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden, describing immigrants to the U.S. as “criminals” and trumpeting other policy accomplishments in his first and second terms.
That level of partisanship in a military setting – on the campus of the nation’s first military academy, and before an audience of cadets and their families, many of whom are veterans – is unusual in the United States.
The Conversation U.S. has published several articles discussing the importance to democracy of keeping the military and partisan politics separate. Here are two highlights from that coverage.
1. Cadets focus on the Constitution
During the West Point ceremony, the graduates themselves took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” And all of them had studied the significance of that oath, including in classes like those taught by Joseph G. Amoroso and Lee Robinson, active-duty Army officers who graduated from West Point and later served as professors there.
As Amoroso and Robinson wrote, those classes teach cadets that, like all military personnel, they serve the Constitution and the American people, not a particular person or political party:
“(O)ur oath forms the basis of a nonpartisan ethic. In the U.S., unlike in many other countries, the oath implies military leaders should be trusted for their expertise and judgment, not for their loyalty to an individual or political party. We emphasize to cadets the rules and professional expectations associated with this profound responsibility.”
Retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Samuel C. Mahaney, who teaches history, national security and constitutional law at Missouri University of Science and Technology, observed:
“(S)ince the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. … (N)onpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.”
Mahaney wrote that if Trump’s actions during his second term meant a change from the centuries of precedent, “military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military’s independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president’s orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Michael McCaul (10th District of Texas)
WASHINGTON– Today, U.S. Congressman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) — chairman emeritus of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the committee’s hearing, titled “FY26 State Department Posture: Protecting American Interests.” McCaul and Rubio discussed how the committee’s work to reauthorize the State Department can help the Trump administration advance its foreign policy objectives, including restoring U.S. foreign aid to its core mission.
Click to watch
Full exchange below:
Chair Emeritus McCaul: Let me express my deep sympathy to the family of Gerry Connolly. He was a dear friend of mine. I will miss him dearly and the Irish twinkle in his eye.
Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here today. Under the last four years — under President Biden — the world is on fire now. From the debacle, the evacuation, poorly executed from Afghanistan, which then led, I believe, to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine — the largest land invasion since World War II in Europe — to the Middle East on fire now, to October 7th. I commend you for trying to seek peace in these hotspots, including the Indo-Pacific, which probably presents the greatest threat.
I would be clear-eyed with Mr. Putin. I personally don’t think he’s negotiating in good faith. The Ayatollah cannot be trusted. In fact, it was recently reported that they got their proxy, Hamas, to invade Israel on October 7th to derail the normalization talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Let me go to the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. It was initially created to counter the rise of the Soviet Union. Today, I believe it should be used to counter the influence of Communist China around the globe, and that’s a core mission I know you support, as do I. When I was chairman of this committee, I put holds on the programs the current chairman is talking about — that being the drag shows in Ecuador to grants to advance atheism in Nepal. These are not in the interest of the United States or our national security interests.
So, I think we need to return these agencies and programs to their core mission. I believe that you’re trying to do that by bringing them under your supervision at the State Department. It’s not a new idea. Madeline Albright tried to do that many years ago. And I do think under your supervision, that we’ll have transparency and accountability with the foreign assistance programs.
We are engaged in a reauthorization of the State Department. Sir, can you tell me how this would assist you, with respect to reorganization of these important agencies under your department?
Secretary Rubio: Well, I think the key to reorganization — and by the way, we never did it in all the years that I was in the Senate either. It never happened. It needs to happen. We want it to happen. As you know, in our reorganization, we didn’t touch any of the statutory offices because we can’t. But there’s two advantages to it, or three advantages.
The first is it becomes permanent. We can create an organizational structure that becomes enduring, especially if it’s one that we believe in. Second, I think that it will help us with the input and ideas. Look, we provided the initial preliminary indication to Congress.
We’ve been taking input — including from many on the minority — and some of those are going to be reflected when we put out our final approach that we want to take. But ultimately, we would love to work with the committee to find ways to improve on the streamlining.
By the way, we’re also taking input from inside our building. Some of the ideas in our reorg — many of the ideas from our reorg — came from inside the State Department from career officials, including some that are still providing input for us on sort of how to structure it.
But I think the advantage of doing it statutorily is that it becomes enduring and permanent and provides certainty in the days to come. Otherwise, you know, it can change over time and continue to bloat and expand to levels that it got to. It was an unreadable org chart. The org chart that I showed you — the initial org chart that I inherited — was just the top line. Within each one of those boxes, there were multiple boxes — some of them duplicative, redundant, and in many cases, no one could even tell us what they were doing, because it’s easy to grow. It’s much harder to reorganize and to streamline activity, and that’s what we want to do.
Chair Emeritus McCaul: Well, it’s a very noble effort. With my one minute remaining, I authorized the Remain in Mexico program in this committee. I commend the administration; within a matter of months, [they] have restored order to the border, taking chaos and turned it into a safe border.
I mean, the crossings have gone down 95%. There’s no longer catch and release. And I do think the executive order on Remain in Mexico is very important. I know you share that responsibility with the Department of Homeland Security — a committee I chaired as well. What is the latest on your negotiations with Mexico to bring that important program back?
Secretary Rubio: Well, as you’re aware, I’m sure that we’ve had a number of what I recall, both irritants, but also areas of cooperation with the Mexican government. It’s been actually pretty positive. They have been very responsive on our security concerns. They’ve increased their security cooperation with us in ways that have been very productive.
In fact, at some point here over the next few weeks, I intend to travel potentially to Mexico along with a couple other cabinet members to sort of finalize some of these areas of cooperation. This may be one we talk about, but we’ve been primarily focused with Mexico on two things.
One is on trade — which is not my department — but obviously, our trade representative, Mr. Greer, and also Commerce Secretary Lutnick has been engaging with them. And then the other is on security cooperation. We have a mutual interest in Mexico. In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there.
We want to help stop that flow. The reverse is [that] those cartels threaten the state. There are parts of Mexico that are governed by cartels where there is — in fact, I think I heard last night — two more people were murdered in Mexico City associated with the mayor of Mexico City. The political violence there is real.
They have a vested interest and a desire to go after these cartels, and we want to help equip them and provide them information. They’ve also been increasingly cooperative — more than ever before — in bringing back and extraditing people wanted in this country for crimes who are in their custody.
So, I think we’ve got good areas of cooperation. We still have some more work to do on migration, but they’ve been cooperative.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Michael McCaul (10th District of Texas)
WASHINGTON– Today, U.S. Congressman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) — chairman emeritus and current vice chair of the House Homeland Security Committee — was featured in a Fox News article highlighting his successful push to secure $12 billion in federal funding to reimburse states for costs incurred to secure the border under the Biden administration. Texas, which has spent over $11 billion under Operation Lone Star to combat the border crisis, is expected to receive the majority of these funds.
McCaul touts money in Trump tax bill to pay Texas back for fighting Biden border policies
Fox News
Elizabeth Elkind
May 24, 2025
There’s a provision tucked into President Donald Trump’s broadly ranging “big, beautiful bill” that could see Texas get billions of dollars in funds that it spent on the state’s border security under the Biden administration.
The legislation earmarked $12 billion for a grant program allowing states to be reimbursed for costs they incurred trying to stem the flow of illegal immigration during the Democratic administration.
The measure was added to the bill hours before the final vote – but Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the former chairman of the House Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs Committees, told Fox News Digital it was a product of months of negotiation.
“Early on, [Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green, R-Tenn., and I were discussing reconciliation going through the Homeland Security Committee. And, you know, there was about $70 billion for the border,” McCaul said. “Texas bore the brunt of the federal mission the last four years and deserves to be reimbursed. And so he agreed, had a conversation with Governor Abbott, and he agreed.”
[…]
The state of Texas, Fox News Digital was told, had incurred just over $11 billion in costs from Gov. Greg Abbott’s efforts to keep the border in his state secure.
“The fact of the matter is, when you look at the costs that were borne, Texas had the lion’s share of [the burden] carrying out the federal mission when the Biden administration completely failed to deliver on border security,” McCaul said. “My state built the border wall and built detention facilities. We bore a lot of costs.”
[…]
Rather than add it to the initial text of the bill, McCaul said, leaders opted to include it in a “managers amendment” that was added on Wednesday night along with several other issues that lawmakers needed more time to negotiate.
“The legislative process, it’s something I’ve gotten to know over my 20 years and how to get things done up here. And I thought, you know, the way we worked it was strategically very smart,” McCaul said. “It’s going to the Senate now. And Senator Cornyn is going to take it up, be the champion in the Senate.”
The Texas Republican first met with Abbott and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on the matter in early February, Fox News Digital was told.
McCaul said he also worked closely on the push with Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, who told Fox News Digital that “no state” carried more financial burden from the border crisis than Texas.”
[…]
Johnson, for his part, thanked McCaul for his efforts in a public written statement.
“Thanks to Rep. McCaul, states that stepped up to protect Americans in the face of Biden’s border catastrophe will be reimbursed for doing the work the Biden Administration refused to do,” the speaker said. “Had those patriotic governors not taken action and used the resources of their state, the devastation from Biden’s wide-open border would have been significantly worse.”
[…]
McCaul told Fox News Digital that he was confident the measure would stay in the Senate bill after conversations with the Trump administration on the matter.
“I anticipate it will go forward,” McCaul said. “I’m, just proud that we were able to get this done. I’m very proud of what my state did to stop the flow of illegals and dangerous actors coming into the country.”
When reached for comment, Abbott told Fox News Digital, “This is a national issue that Texas was proud to address, and we are grateful for the allocation that reduces the financial burden that Texas incurred.”
When world leaders engage, the assumption is always that they engage on issues based on verified facts, which their administrative staff are supposed to prepare. Under this assumption, we thought the meeting at the White House on 21 May between South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, and US president Donald Trump would follow this pattern.
Issues of agriculture, farming and land (and rural crime) were central to the discussions. What is clear to us as agricultural economists is that the skewed views expressed by Trump about these issues originate in South Africa. This includes Trump’s statement: “But Blacks are not farmers.”
In our work as agricultural economists, we have, in many pieces and books (our latest titled The Uncomfortable Truth about South Africa’s Agriculture), tried to present South Africans with the real facts about the political economy policy reforms and structural dimensions of South African agriculture.
Writing on these matters was necessary given that official data – agricultural census 2017, as well as the official land audit of 2017 – all provide an incomplete picture of the real state and structure of South African agriculture. The reason is that the agricultural census, which is supposed to provide a comprehensive and inclusive assessment of the size and structure of the primary agricultural sector, and the land audit, which was supposed to record the ownership of all land in South Africa, are incomplete in their coverage.
The incomplete and inaccurate official data provides fertile ground for radical statements by the left and the right – and novices on social media. This is why South Africa has to deal with falsehoods coming from the US. These include Trump’s statement that black people are not farmers in South Africa.
South Africa is to blame for providing inaccurate data to feed these false narratives.
The facts presented here should allow a more nuanced interpretation of South Africa’s farm structure. Firstly, there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. And not all white commercial farm operations are “large-scale”, and not all black farmers are “small-scale”, “subsistence” or “emerging”. Most farm operations can be classified as micro, or small in scale.
This is important so that one doesn’t view South Africa’s agriculture as mainly white farmers. Indeed, we are a country of two agricultures with black farmers mainly at small scale and accounting for roughly 10% of the commercial agricultural output. Still, this doesn’t mean they are not active in the sector. They mainly still require support to expand and increase output, but they are active.
The facts
In the wake of the circus in the Oval Office, we were amazed by the total silence of the many farmers’ organisations in South Africa. We have not seen one coming out to reject all of Trump’s claims. The only thing we can deduce from this is that these falsehoods suit the political position of some farmer organisations. But at what cost? Will many of their members be harmed by trade sanctions or tariffs against South Africa? The US is an important market for South Africa’s agriculture, accounting for 4% of the US$13.7 billion exports in 2024.
When Ramaphosa highlighted the fact that crime, and rural crime in particular, has an impact on all South Africans and that more black people than white people are being killed, Trump’s response was disturbing, to say the least: “But Blacks are not farmers”. This requires an immediate fact check.
We returned to the text from our chapter in the Handbook on the South African Economy we jointly prepared in 2021. In the extract below, we discuss the real numbers of farmers in South Africa and try to provide a sensible racial classification of farmers to denounce Trump’s silly statement.
As highlighted earlier, the two latest agricultural censuses (2007 and 2017) are incomplete as they restricted the sample frame to farm businesses registered to pay value added tax. Only firms with a turnover of one million rands (US$55,500) qualify for VAT registration.
We were able to expand the findings from the censuses with numbers from the 2011 population census and the 2016 community survey to better understand the total number of commercial farming units in South Africa. The Community Survey 2016 is a large-scale survey that happened between Censuses 2011 and 2021. The main objective was to provide population and household statistics at municipal level to government and the private sector, to support planning and decision-making.
Data from the 2011 population census (extracted from three agricultural questions included in the census) shows that 2,879,638 households out of South Africa’s total population, or 19.9% of all households, were active in agriculture for subsistence or commercial purposes.
Only 2% of these active households reported an annual income derived from agriculture above R307,000 (US$17,000). This translates into 57,592 households that can be considered commercial farmers, with agriculture as the main or only source of household income. This corresponds in some way with the 40,122 farming businesses that are registered for VAT as noted in the 2017 agricultural census report.
If we use the numbers from the agricultural census it is evident almost 90% of all VAT-registered commercial farming businesses could be classified as micro or small-scale enterprises. If the farm businesses excluded from the census are accounted for under the assumption that they are too small for VAT registration, then the fact still stands that the vast majority of all farm enterprises in South Africa are small family farms.
There are, however, 2,610 large farms (with turnover exceeding R22.5 million (US$1.2 million per annum) which are responsible for 67% of farm income and employed more than half the agricultural labour force of 757,000 farm workers in 2017.
Another way to get to farm numbers is to use the 2016 Community Survey. Using the shares as shown in Table 2, we estimate there are 242,221 commercial farming households in South Africa, of which only 43,891 (18%) are white commercial farmers. (This is very much in line with the VAT registered farmers but also acknowledging the fact that many white farm businesses are not necessarily registered for VAT.)
Let’s consider only the agricultural households with agriculture as their main source of income, surveyed in the 2016 community survey. We end up with a total of 132,700 households, of whom 93,000 (70%) are black farmers. This reality is something that policy makers and farm organisations find very difficult to deal with and it seems that Trump also found this too good to be true.
We have tried here in a long winded way to deal with farm numbers and how to get to a race classification of farmers in South Africa. In the end we trust that we have managed to show that there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. Their share in total output is smaller than that of their white counterparts. The National Agricultural Marketing Council puts black farmers’ share of agricultural production as roughly 10%. But these numbers are also incomplete and largely an undercount.
It will always be challenging to get to the real number of black farmers’ share of agricultural output as nobody would ever know whether the potato or the cabbage on the shelf came from a farm owned by a black farmer or a white person but operated by a black farmer, for example. As South Africans know, the labour on farms, in pack houses, distribution systems and retail are all black. So, the sweat and hard work of black South African workers are integral to the food supply chain in South Africa.
Let’s get these facts straight and promote them honestly.
Wandile Sihlobo is the Chief Economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz) and a member of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC).
Johann Kirsten does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts Ed Markey
Letter Text (PDF)
Boston (May 28, 2025) – Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee Ranking Member Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today led his colleagues Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representatives Richard Neal (MA-01) and Jim McGovern (MA-02) in writing to Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator Kelly Loeffler, slamming the closure of the Springfield, Massachusetts, SBA district office, which would leave Western Massachusetts and the Pioneer Valley without access to vital SBA services and support.
The Trump administration is continuing its nonsensical war against small businesses, dismantling the infrastructure that supports them, and undermining the foundation of American entrepreneurship. The lawmakers urge Administrator Loeffler to stand up to DOGE, insist it reverse course, and work to keep the Springfield district office fully staffed, open, and operational.
In the letter, the lawmakers write, “The SBA’s Springfield district office is not just a convenience for Western Massachusetts and Pioneer Valley small businesses, it is a lifeline. The district office helps build small business ecosystems by connecting rural, underserved, and emerging markets to federal resources that support local economies. The Springfield district office has served for years as an essential partner for Massachusetts entrepreneurs, offering small businesses critical guidance and expertise on applying for SBA loans and disaster relief programs, among other services. Closing this office will place a tremendous burden on small business owners, forcing them to take time away from their work and drive hours—in some cases a six-hour round trip—to the nearest SBA district office in Boston.”
According to DOGE’s website, it has terminated 10 commercial leases in Massachusetts that house federal offices. Among the terminated leases, effective June 1, is 894 square feet of office space located at 1 Federal Street in Springfield, home to the SBA’s district office.
There are no longer any employees working at the Springfield district office, with the last remaining staff member having left in recent weeks—and no plans exist to relocate the office and hire new employees.
The lawmakers request responses by May 30, 2025, to questions including:
Who specifically authorized or approved the decision to terminate the lease for the SBA district office located at 1 Federal Street, Springfield, Massachusetts?
Did DOGE, SBA, or another federal agency or office initiate this decision? Did SBA object to or oppose the lease termination at any point? If so, please provide any documentation or summary of its position.
How does SBA plan to ensure that small business owners in Western Massachusetts, including rural and underserved areas, retain access to the in-person services previously provided by the Springfield office?
What accommodations, if any, will be made for small business owners who now face significant travel burdens to access SBA services in Boston or elsewhere? Has SBA considered the economic and logistical hardship the closure imposes on these small business owners?
Was there any public notice, stakeholder consultation, or opportunity for comment provided prior to the decision to close the Springfield office? If so, when and in what form did the notice or consultation occur? What feedback, if any, did local businesses, elected officials, or community leaders provide?
On March 20, Senators Markey and Warren sent a letter to General Services Administration (GSA) Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian, asking what factors went into GSA’s decision to cancel or not renew 17 leases in Massachusetts, including the Springfield District Office.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
U.S. President Donald J. Trump recently signed into law H.J. Res. 61, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing.”
This Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution overturns the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Rubber Tire Manufacturing National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule. Finalized November 29, 2024, at the conclusion of the Biden Administration, EPA could not even quantify whether public health would be protected and unreasonably requires rubber tire manufacturers to install regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs), which will cost American manufacturers millions and potentially lead to layoffs.
U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA), who was the chief House sponsor of the CRA resolution, released the following statement:
“I am pleased President Trump signed my Congressional Review Act resolution into law!
“Americans are now officially protected from a last-minute Biden-Harris rule that would have needlessly harmed the tire manufacturing industry and raised prices for American consumers.”
BACKGROUND
Rep. Griffith introduced H.J. Res. 61 in the last week of February. Rep. Griffith introduced the CRA alongside U.S. Senators Tim Scott and Roger Wicker.
On March 5, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.J. Res. 61. Rep. Griffith spoke on the House floor defending the CRA.
Following House passage, Rep. Griffith celebrated House passage with several House GOP leaders.
On May 6, the U.S. Senate passed the measure.
On March 12, the Trump EPA announced reconsideration of air rules regulating American energy, manufacturing and chemical sectors.
The Biden EPA rule would negatively impact the Goodyear facility in Danville, Virginia.
Rep. Griffith recently defended several CRAs on the House floor seeking to overturn Biden EPA measures that facilitated unfair electric vehicle mandates and imposed stricter car emissions standards on the American people.
United States President Donald Trump was “not happy” with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, this week.
For three consecutive nights, from Friday to Sunday, Russia launched about 900 drones and scores of missiles at Ukraine. At least 18 people were killed, including three children.
“We’re in the middle of talking and he’s shooting rockets into Kyiv and other cities,” Trump told reporters on Sunday, after Putin ordered the largest air assault on Ukraine’s civilians in its three-year war.
Following up on his remarks, Trump posted on social media that Putin had “gone absolutely CRAZY!”
Putin is not crazy. He is a tactician with a long-term goal: to make Russia a great power again and secure his place in the history books as the re-builder of Russia’s imperial might.
Trump announced after a phone call with Putin on May 19 that Russia and Ukraine would “immediately start negotiations” towards a ceasefire.
With his latest air campaign on Ukraine, however, Putin is threatening to destroy the goodwill he’s built up in Washington, where Trump has been consistently soft on Russia and tough on his allies.
So, what is Putin’s strategy? Why is he launching these massive air bombardments on Ukrainian civilians now?
Putin sees weakness in the West
One theory is these attacks are somehow preparations for a major offensive. That makes little sense.
Attacking military facilities, weapons depots or even frontline troops are useful preparations for an impending attack. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, meanwhile, is a sign of either desperation or impatience.
The US also sent bombers to Japan in the final stages of the war because the American public became tired of seeing their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers die on Pacific islands they had never heard of. The war had dragged on forever by this point, and there seemed no end in sight.
Is Putin desperate or impatient? Likely the latter.
From the perspective of the Kremlin, Russia’s strategic situation is as good as it has been for years.
The US is trying to destroy itself through trade wars and boorish diplomacy. Trump clearly dislikes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and hopes the war will somehow end if he just demands it.
Europe is continuing to back Ukraine. However, for the time being, it still needs US support because its entire security structure is built around NATO and US strength, both economic and military.
What Putin sees when he surveys the international scene is weakness. In his thinking, such weakness needs to be exploited – now is the time to hurt Ukraine as much as possible, and hope it will crack. Analysts call this a “cognitive warfare effort”.
Indiscriminate air war on civilians is the only means Putin currently has to pressure Ukraine. His army has been advancing, but painfully slowly. There is no breakthrough in sight, even once the spring muds dry and the summer fighting season starts in earnest.
Russia has gradually advanced in Ukraine throughout 2024, but with no perceivable change in the overall situation. Putin does not command precision weapons or super spies, which he could use to take out Ukraine’s leadership.
All he can do is rain death on women, children and the elderly from relatively cheap, unsophisticated weapons, such as drones. He now has these in large supply, thanks to ramping up military production at home.
Bombing campaigns do not end wars
A strategic air war on civilians seldom works, however.
Japan’s surrender in 1945 is an exception, but it is misleading in many ways. The Americans had flattened Japan’s cities for a while already, just not using their new atomic weapons. Japan had already lost the war and the real question was if there would be a bloody US invasion or surrender.
And as the US dropped its two nuclear bombs in August of that year, the Red Army joined the fight, racing across Manchuria to help occupy Japanese territories.
In Germany, the British-American bombings from 1942 onwards certainly had an effect on war production, as they killed workers and destroyed factories. But they did not incapacitate the German army and certainly did not break morale.
Instead, the bombings led to embitterment and a closing of ranks around the regime. German society fought to the last moment. It did so not just despite, but because of the air war. The German army was eventually defeated by the ground troops of the Red Army, who took Berlin in an incredibly bloody fight.
Other historical failures are even more spectacular. The US air force dropped 864,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam during an air campaign of more than 300,000 sorties lasting from 1965 to late 1968. The North Vietnamese lost maybe 29,000 people (dead and wounded), more than half of them civilians. The Americans and their South Vietnamese allies still lost the war.
Putin’s air war will likely follow the historical pattern: it has further embittered the Ukrainians, who know very well that what comes from the east is not liberation.
Another summer of fighting lies ahead. Ukraine’s friends in the democratic world need to urgently redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The misguided hopes that Putin would somehow “make a deal” lie under the rubble his drones leave behind in Ukraine’s cities.
Mark Edele receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
VILNIUS, Lithuania, May 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — BTCC, the world’s longest-serving crypto exchange, is excited to announce the launch of its Hot Coins Trading Week campaign series, marking the beginning of pre-anniversary celebrations leading up to the platform’s 14th milestone in June. The first round of the campaign focuses on carefully selected spot and futures pairs that have gained significant traction among the exchange’s user base of over 7 million.
The first round, which runs from May 26 to June 2, 2025, features a diverse selection of trending pairs including TRUMP, PI, and AI16Z. The campaign offers substantial rewards totaling 50,000 USDT across two prize pools, including exclusive benefits for new users and trading volume-based rewards for active participants:
New User Exclusive Prize Pool: First-time BTCC traders can earn 10 USDT by achieving 10,000 USDT in cumulative trading volume.
Trading Champions: High-volume traders compete for rewards ranging from 5 USDT to 800 USDT based on trading volume.
“These selected pairs not only reflect current market trends, but also align with our users’ trading behavior observed over the past quarter,” said Alex, Head of Operations at BTCC. “After 14 years, we know what our community wants to trade. This campaign gives our traders straightforward spot trading on the assets they’re most excited about, with more rounds featuring different coins coming as we build up to our June anniversary.”
The timing of this campaign series strategically positions BTCC as it approaches its 14th anniversary milestone in June. The exchange has built a reputation for longevity and stability in the volatile cryptocurrency market, making it one of the industry’s most established platforms.
Users can participate in the current round through BTCC’s platform, with additional rounds to be announced in the coming weeks. The exchange encourages traders to stay updated on campaign developments and anniversary celebrations through BTCC’s official X account.
About BTCC
Founded in 2011, BTCC is one of the world’s longest-serving cryptocurrency exchanges, offering secure and user-friendly trading services to millions of users globally. With a commitment to security, innovation, and community building, BTCC continues to be a trusted platform in the evolving cryptocurrency landscape.
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
May 27, 2025
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) joined U.S. Senators John Ossoff (D-GA) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) in reintroducing legislation to ban stock trading by Members of Congress. The Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act would require all members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children to place their stocks into a qualified blind trust or divest the holding—ensuring they cannot use inside information to influence their stock trades and make a profit.
“As Donald Trump continues to corruptly enrich himself and his billionaire friends through luxury jets from foreign powers, suspicious market manipulation and shady cryptocurrency scams, Congress must lead by example to help restore trust and integrity in government,” said Duckworth. “That is why I’m proud to help reintroduce the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act to ensure every Member of Congress complies with this commonsense, ethical best practice.”
The American people overwhelmingly support this policy, with 86% saying they back the measure, including 88% of Democrats, 87% of Republicans and 81% of Independents.
In addition to Duckworth, Ossoff and Kelly, this bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO).
Duckworth has pushed to prevent Members of Congress from being able to trade stocks for years. She first helped introduce the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act in 2023, the same year she helped introduce the bipartisan, bicameral Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act to prohibit members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children from abusing their positions for personal financial gain by owning or trading securities, commodities or futures.
-30-
Four helicopters carrying an arrest team whirled over the mountains near Mexico’s southwestern coast toward Cervantes’ compound in the town of Villa Purificación, the heart of the infamous Jalisco Nueva Generación cartel.
As the lead helicopter pulled within range, bullets from a truck-mounted, military-grade machine gun on the ground struck the engine. Before it reached the ground, the massive helicopter was hit by a pair of rocket-powered grenades.
This .50-caliber cartridge was found stuck in the truck-mounted Browning M2HB machine gun that the Jalisco Nueva Generación cartel used to damage a Mexican Security Forces Super Cougar helicopter. ATF
Four soldiers from Mexico’s Secretariat of National Defense were killed in the crash. Three more soldiers were killed in the firefight that followed, and another 12 were injured.
The engagement was the first known incident of a cartel shooting down a military aircraft in Mexico. The cartel’s retaliation for the attempted arrest was swift and brutal. It set fire to trucks, buses, banks, gasoline stations and businesses. The distractions worked. Cervantes, also known as “El Mencho,” escaped.
The Browning machine gun that took down the helicopter was traced to a legal firearm purchase in Oregon made by a U.S. citizen. And a Barrett .50-caliber rifle used in the ambush was traced to a sale in a U.S. gun shop in Texas 4½ years before.
Many military-grade weapons like these are trafficked into Mexico from the U.S. each year, aided by loose standards for firearm dealers and gun laws that favor illicit sales.
We – a professor of economic development who has been tracking gun trafficking for more than 10 years, and an investigative journalist – spent a year sifting through documents to find the number, origins and characteristics of weapons flowing from the U.S. to Mexico.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives – the agency known as ATF tasked with regulating the industry – publishes the number of U.S. guns seized in Mexico and traced back to U.S. dealers, but it doesn’t provide an official trafficking estimate. The 2003 Tiahrt Amendments bar the ATF from creating a database of firearm sales and prohibit federal agencies from sharing detailed trace data outside of law enforcement.
To estimate weapons flow, we gathered trafficking estimates, including leaked data, previous research, firearm manufacturing totals and the ATF trace data.
The model we generated gave us a conservative middle estimate: About 135,000 firearms were trafficked across the border in 2022. In contrast, Ukraine, engaged in a war with Russia, received 40,000 small arms from the United States between January 2020 and April 2024 – an average of 9,000 per year.
An increase in guns trafficked to Mexico from the U.S. relates to an increase in Mexico’s homicide rate.
More of the most destructive weapons come from independent gun dealers versus large chain stores – 16 times as many assault-style weapons and 60 times as many sniper rifles.
The trafficking flow drives an arms race between criminals and Mexican law enforcement; the U.S. gun industry profits on sales to both.
ATF oversight of dealers reduces the likelihood their guns are resold on the illicit market.
Following the flow
Since 2008, the U.S. has spent more than US$3 billion to help stabilize Mexico through the rule of law and stem its surges of extreme violence, much of it committed with U.S. firearms. Many programs are funded through the U.S. State Department, which is facing budget cuts, and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has sustained deep cuts.
Meanwhile, the gun industry and its supporters have undercut these efforts by fighting measures to regulate gun sales.
From 2015-2023, 185,000 guns linked to crimes in Mexico were sent to the ATF to be traced – the process of using a firearm’s serial number and other characteristics to identify the trail of gun ownership. About 125,000 of those weapons have been traced back to the U.S.
Our analyses show that U.S.-Mexico firearms trafficking has dire implications for ordinary Mexicans – and that U.S. regulatory actions can have an enormous impact. This adds to a growing body of research tying U.S.-sold guns to Mexico-based gangs and cartels, illegal drug trafficking, homicide rates, corruption of Mexican officials, illicit financial transactions and migration trends.
Oregon guns tied to cartel
The Jalisco Nueva Generación cartel is poised to be the biggest player in the drug cartel game. El Mencho, still at large, is one of the most powerful people directing the flow of heroin, fentanyl and methamphetamines into the United States, while orchestrating campaigns of fear, intimidation and displacement in Mexico.
The Browning .50-caliber rifle that aided El Mencho’s evasion in 2015 was manufactured by a company based in Morgan, Utah, and legally sold to Erik Flores Elortegui, a U.S. citizen.
Elortegui fled the country after he was indicted in Oregon for smuggling guns into Mexico and is now at the top of the ATF’s most wanted list. He wasn’t alone in his gunrunning schemes. According to a grand jury indictment, Elortegui purchased 20 firearms through an accomplice, Robert Allen Cummins, in 2013 and 2014. Cummins was straw purchasing – buying weapons under his name for Elortegui.
Two of the .50-caliber weapons that Cummins purchased for Elortegui – the long rifles on the right – were among those later recovered from a tractor trailer in Sonora, Mexico. USA v. Robert Allen Cummins. USA v. Robert Allen Cummins
Before she gave Cummins a 40-month prison sentence in 2017, Judge Ann Aiken admonished him for the pain and suffering his weapons were likely going to cause. She told him to read “Dreamland,” which chronicles America’s opioid crisis and its connection to Mexican drug cartels.
After their mother was killed by organized crime five years ago, Emylce Ines Espinoza-Alarcon’s sister’s family migrated to the States, she said.
Espinoza-Alarcon, her children and other relatives were more recently driven from their homes by violence. “As a parent, you try to flee to a different place where they might be safe,” Espinoza-Alarcon said. She said she believes American weapons are to blame, but there “is nowhere else for us to go.”
Emylce Ines Espinoza-Alarcon holds her toddler as she listens while her aunt, Alicia Zomora-Guevara, front, describes the cartel attack on her town that forced their families into exile. Zomora-Guevara’s son, Kevin Jait Alarcon-Zamora, stands to the right, and Espinoza-Alarcon’s son and teenage daughter sit on the Mexico City hotel room bed in front of her. Sean Campbell, CC BY-ND
A 2023 survey found that 88% of the 180,000 Mexican migrants to the U.S. that year were fleeing violence – a flip from 2017 when most were coming for economic opportunity.
The ATF’s enforcement
ATF inspections keep illicit guns in check, our analysis shows.
The agency’s primary enforcement tools are inspections, violations reports, warning letters and meetings, and, when inspectors find violations that are reckless or willfully endanger the public, revocation notices.
But the bureau’s 2025 congressional budget request points out that it would need 1,509 field investigators to reach its goal of inspecting each dealer at least once every three years.
This is a condensed version. To learn more about the connections between U.S. gun sales, U.S. regulations, Mexican drug cartels and migration, read the full investigation
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, Associate Professor of Political Science, San Diego State University
While sanctuary policies for immigrants have grown in the U.S. since the 1980s, the Trump administration is the first to challenge them. Marcos Silva/iStock/Getty Images Plus
San Francisco, Chicago and New York are among the major cities – as well as more than 200 small towns and counties and a dozen states – that over the past 40 years have adopted what is often known as sanctuary policies.
There is not a single definition of a sanctuary policy. But it often involves local authorities not asking about a resident’s immigration status, or not sharing that personal information with federal immigration authorities.
So when a San Francisco police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer will not ask if the person is living in the country legally.
American presidents, from Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, have chosen to leave sanctuary policies largely unchallenged since different places first adopted them in the 1970s. This changed in 2017, when President Donald Trump first tried to cut federal funding to sanctuary places, claiming that their policies “willfully violate Federal law.” Legal challenges during his first term stopped him from actually withholding the money.
At the start of his second term, Trump signed two executive orders in January and April 2025 which again state that his administration will withhold federal money from areas with sanctuary policies.
“Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!” Trump said, according to an April White House statement. This statement was immediately followed by his April executive order.
These two executive orders task the attorney general and secretary of homeland security with publishing a list of all sanctuary places and notifying local and state officials of “non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it.” Those that do not comply with federal law, according to the orders, may lose federal funding.
San Francisco and 14 other sanctuary cities, including New Haven, Connecticut, and Portland, Oregon, sued the Trump administration in February on the grounds that it was illegally trying to coerce cities to comply with its policies. A U.S. district court judge in California issued an injunction on April 24preventing the administration – at least for the time being – from cutting funding from places with sanctuary policies.
However, as researchers who have studied sanctuary policies for over a decade, we know that Trump’s claim that sanctuary policies violate federal immigration law is not correct.
It’s true that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. Yet there is no federal requirement that state or local governments participate or cooperate in federal immigration enforcement, which would require an act of Congress.
In 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department was the first to announce a prohibition on local officials asking about a resident’s immigration status.
However, it was not until the 1980s that the sanctuary movement took off, when hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans fled civil war and violence in their home countries and migrated to the U.S. This prompted a number of cities to declare solidarity with the faith-based sanctuary movement that offered refuge to Salvadoran, Guatemalan and Nicaraguan asylum seekers facing deportation.
In 1985, Berkeley, Calif., and San Francisco pledged that city officials, including police officers, would not report Central Americans to immigration authorities as long as they were law abiding.
“We are not asking anyone to do anything illegal,” Nancy Walker, a supervisor for San Francisco, said in 1985, according to The New York Times. “We have got to extend our hand to these people. If these people go home, they die. They are asking us to let them stay.”
Today, there are hundreds of sanctuary cities, towns, counties and states across the country that all have a variation of policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Sometimes – but not always – places with sanctuary policies bar local law enforcement agencies from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the country’s main immigration enforcement agency.
A large part of ICE’s work is identifying, arresting and deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In order to carry out this work, ICE issues what is known as “detainer requests” to local law enforcement authorities. A detainer request asks local law enforcement to hold a specific arrested person already being held by police until that person can be transferred to ICE, which can then take steps to deport them.
While places without sanctuary policies tend to comply with these requests, some sanctuary jurisdictions, like the state of California, only do so in the cases of particular violent criminal offenses.
Yet local officials in sanctuary places cannot legally block ICE from arresting local residents who are living in the country illegally, or from carrying out any other parts of its work.
However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2018 case involving San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California, that the president could not refuse to “disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization.”
These cases were in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court when the Department of Justice, under Biden, asked that they be dismissed.
Other Supreme Court rulings also suggest that the Trump administration’s claim that it can withhold federal funding from sanctuary places rests on shaky legal ground.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 and again in 1997 that the federal government could not coerce state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, or compel them to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
Under pressure
The first Trump administration was not generally successful, with the exception of the split over the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, at stripping funding from sanctuary places. But cutting federal funding – even if it happens temporarily – can be economically damaging to cities and counties while they challenge the decision in court.
Local officials also face other kinds of political pressure to comply with the Trump administration’s demands.
A legal group founded by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff in the Trump administration, for example, sent letters to dozens of local officials in January threatening criminal prosecution for their sanctuary policies.
Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, a sanctuary city, testifies during a House committee hearing on sanctuary city mayors on March 5, 2025, in Washington. Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images
The real effects of sanctuary policies
One part of Trump’s argument against sanctuary policies is that places with these policies have more crime than those that do not.
But there is no established relationship between sanctuary status and crime rates.
There is, however, evidence that when local law enforcement and ICE work together, it reduces the likelihood of immigrant and Latino communities to report crimes, likely for fear of being arrested by federal immigration authorities.
Sanctuary policies are certainly worthy of debate, but this requires an accurate representation of what they are, what they do, and the effects they have.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nicholas J. Cull, Professor of Communication, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism
The bluegrass group Della Mae plays at an orphanage in Kyrgyzstan on its State Department-sponsored American Music Abroad tour in 2012.Photo: Paul Rockower
Previous U.S. administrations have realized this, including during President Donald Trump’s first term, when his team, led by Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Marie Royce, raised the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs budget to an all-time high.
Modern Jazz Quartet traveled to Germany in 1960 as jazz ambassadors on a State Department-sponsored tour.
Giving politics a human dimension
Government-funded cultural diplomacy is an old practice. In 1889, President Benjamin Harrison’s government hosted a delegation of leaders from Latin America on a 5,000-mile rail tour around the American heartland as a curtain raiser for the first Pan-American conference. The visitors met a variety of American icons, from wordsmith Mark Twain to gunsmiths Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson.
President Teddy Roosevelt initiated the first longer-term cultural exchange program by spending money raised from an indemnity imposed on the Chinese government for its mishandling of the Boxer Rebellion, during which Western diplomats had been held hostage. The program, for the education of Chinese people, included study in the U.S. In contrast, European powers did nothing special with their share of the money.
This work went into high gear during the 1950s. The U.S. sought to stitch postwar Germany back into the community of nations, so that nation became a particular focus. Programs linked emerging global leaders to Americans with similar interests: doctor to doctor; pastor to pastor; politician to politician.
Visits gave a human dimension to political alignment, and returnees had the ability to speak to their countrymen and women with the authority of personal experience.
From jazz to promoting peace
The globally focused International Visitor Leadership Program built early-career relationships between U.S. citizens and young foreign leaders who later played a central role in aligning their nations with American policy.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s note from 10 Downing Street about her 1967 exchange visit to the US – ‘Forevermore I shall be a true friend to the United States.’ U.S. Department of State
Current programs include bringing emerging highfliers in tech, music and sports to the U.S. to connect to and be mentored by Americans in the same field and then go home to be part of a living network of enhanced understanding. Such programs are in danger of being cut under Trump.
Five U.S. hip-hop artists traveled to Harare, Zimbabwe, in 2024 to perform for audiences and collaborate with local artists as part of the State Department’s Next Level program. U.S. Department of State
Personal experience conquers stereotypes
How exactly does this work advance U.S. security?
I see these exchanges as the national equivalent to the advice given to a diplomat in kidnap training: Try to establish a rapport with your hostage-taker so that they will see the person and be inclined to mercy.
The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is the part of the Department of State that cultivates empathy and implicitly counters the claims of America’s detractors with personal experience. Quite simply, it is harder to hate people you really know. More than this, exchanged people frequently become the core of each embassy’s local network.
Of course, an exchange program is just one part of a nation’s reputational security.
Reputation flows from reality, and reality is demonstrated over time. Historically, America’s reputation has rested on the health of the country’s core institutions, including its legal system and higher education as well as its standard of living.
U.S. reputational security has also required reform.
In the 1950s, when President Dwight Eisenhower faced an onslaught of Soviet propaganda emphasizing racism and racial disparities within the U.S., he understood that an effective response required that the U.S. not only showcase Black achievement but also be less racist. Civil rights became a Cold War priority.
As lawmakers in Washington debate federal spending priorities, building relationships through cultural tools may not survive budget cuts. Historically, both sides of the political aisle have failed to appreciate the significance of investing in cultural relations.
In 2013, when still a general heading Central Command, Jim Mattis, later Trump’s secretary of defense, was blunt about what such lack of regard would mean. In 2013 he told Congress: ‘If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition, ultimately.“
Nicholas J. Cull does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The common element in each of these policies is a promise from Trump’s inaugural speech that his administration would recognize only two genders: male and female.
These executive orders make life difficult for transgender people, many of whom do identify as women or men, just not the sex they were assigned at birth. Apart from that, however, the emphasis on two and only two genders denies the existence of another group that is often misunderstood: nonbinary people.
Trans vs. nonbinary
I am a sociologist who studies gender. Over the past few years, co-researchers and I have interviewed 123 nonbinary people in three regions in America: the South, the Midwest and the West Coast. These interviewees spoke about how nonbinary people’s increased visibility in society in recent years helped them feel more welcome and liberated from gender stereotypes.
All of the respondents are nonbinary. They do not want to be seen as the opposite sex from what they were assigned at birth; they do not feel they were “born in the wrong body.”
Rather, they want to avoid being forced into the either/or labels that the categories “masculine” and “feminine” or “man” and “woman” entail. They opt out of those binary identifications altogether.
Decades of research, some of it our own, have shown that sex and gender are different from one another. Sex refers to primary and secondary sex characteristics, while gender is about the cultural meanings built upon sex categories.
Gender is a social system that justifies rules and expectations that differentiate between the rights and social roles of men and women. These systems vary across time and place. Today, there are societies such as those in Iceland, Barbados and Bosnia-Herzegovina where women lead the government, while in other societies women must be covered or secluded at home.
Sense of self
Most of the people we talked to were under age 30. Typically, they rejected the societal pressure to adopt the personality characteristics that are stereotypically associated with their biological sex, such as submissiveness for women and toughness for men.
Many of them also reject the ways people are expected to dress and use their bodies to show whether they are men or women. Some people who had been raised as boys wore nail polish and earrings, for example, while sporting a beard. Others wore long earrings and makeup – though those kinds of choices do not necessarily mean someone is trans or nonbinary. Many of the respondents who had been raised as girls, meanwhile, chose to wear masculine clothing. They wanted to mix and match traditional symbols of gender.
Many of the respondents had felt that binary gender identities never quite fit, and they described feeling overjoyed or relieved when they learned about the word “nonbinary”: an identity that offered a more accurate reflection of their sense of self.
“I was just kind of a flesh blob to myself, until I kind of found out that there was a term … nonbinary. And I heard the term and I was like, “Oh, that actually sounds correct for me. That actually feels right …”
Another person we interviewed remembered:
“Before I knew what to call myself … it was like a sense of emptiness. … I finally found that piece to put in that empty spot. And it feels more full now. Like, I feel complete now.”
He, she, they
The implications of that discovery were quite diverse, however. Although all the interviewees identified as nonbinary, what that meant for how they wanted to interact with their friends and families differed dramatically.
For about half of our respondents, using the pronouns “they/them” rather than he/him or she/her was very important, because using that pronoun made them feel respected. Indeed, when asked how they felt being referred to as they/them, one person told us:
“It felt like magic. It felt like everything just went into place and everything fit. And I was just like, ‘Oh, my God, this is … this is it.‘”
Other people we interviewed didn’t really care how others refer to them: he, she or they. Some of these people described having a flexible sense of their own gender. Some days they feel more feminine and use “she”; other days they feel more masculine, and “he” might work better.
“I don’t have to choose one,” one person told us about their pronouns. “I just need all of them in the arsenal.”
Still others said they don’t care about a “proper” pronoun because they do not think gender should matter at all. They don’t want to be a third category, a “they.” Instead, they hope for a world where their body parts do not determine how they’re perceived or treated, and so gender is not central to their identity. They would like to do without gender entirely.
Significance – for everyone
The people we interviewed want the right to live in peace without being forced into a gender category. The recent executive orders deny this freedom by declaring that gender “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification” – contradicting a decades-long consensusin the social sciences on the distinction between sex and gender.
Understanding that sex and gender are related but different matters not only for people who identify as nonbinary or transgender, but for everyone. Without that understanding, it is far too easy to presume socially constructed gender differences are essentially biological and to stigmatize people who do not follow strict gender norms. If you believe the myth that biology alone is the sole reason women and men differ, it would be easy to presume, for example, that women are naturally less ambitious or that men cannot be as nurturing.
If I have learned anything from our team’s research on nonbinary young people, it is that human beings are creative and try to carve out a place for themselves in the world. The evidence suggests that gender nonconformity and diversity is wide and deep in America. What is at stake, however, is how much freedom or oppression individuals will face as they express themselves.
Barbara J. Risman has received funding from the National Science Foundation for the research discussed in this article.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Beasley, PhD Candidate in Business and Law, Liverpool John Moores University
Since the start of his second term in office, US president Donald Trump has cultivated a political atmosphere that discourages freedom of thought. He also actively villainises and punishes any dissenting opinion. Worryingly, this atmosphere looks like it is spreading across other democracies.
Commentators have described Trump as both narcissistic and authoritarian. Yet, running parallel to these factors, one character trait is glaringly common among Trump supporters: sycophancy.
You just have to examine the pre-election rhetoric of Trump loyalists. One backer, Stephen Miller, declared him “the most stylish president … in our lifetimes”. Miller is now deputy White House chief of staff.
And South Dakota governor Kristi Noem gifted Trump a four-foot Mount Rushmore replica – with Trump’s face added alongside the original four presidents. Noem, who is now secretary of homeland security, epitomises the elevation of loyal sycophants over those with arguably better credentials.
Research has examined the dangers of sycophantic behaviour in the workplace, finding it reduces peer respect and morale, and leads to dissonance and lower productivity.
Other research has shown that someone who chooses to employ these tactics can enjoy improved promotion prospects, rewards such as the first refusal on business trips, easier access to company resources and a higher salary compared to their peers. But studies have also shown sycophants often suffer emotional exhaustion from the dual stresses of manipulation and responsibility.
Ongoing research I (Neil) am doing on workplace sycophancy reveals similar patterns. Interviews, spanning from junior staff to CEOs, show reduced motivation, falling team morale and declining respect for sycophants.
One participant highlighted the effect on teamwork that sycophantic behaviour can have within the workplace.
Sycophancy means raising yourself in somebody’s esteem, at the expense of somebody else, on the ladder. And so… it’s going to impact upon on the ability to be part of a team.
Another participant offered a comparison to a different deviant workplace behaviour – intimidation.
I’d say that sycophantic behaviour is coming into the same category as bullying. And it’s hard sometimes, especially with bullying and sycophantic behaviour, you are dealing with a lot of people that are manipulative, and manipulating people are quite charismatic. And when you’re charismatic, you’re more believable because you’re a storyteller.
One solution that emerges from the research is workforce education – teaching employees to recognise and mitigate a culture of ingratiation.
As an employee, many people might find it difficult not to bow to peer pressure. If the senior colleague encourages and rewards those who suck up, how do other colleagues, who do not choose to utilise such tactics, compete?
Dangerous ideas take root
Another factor to consider is the tendency for some workers to “kiss up and kick down”. What this means is that staff who are lower down the hierarchical ladder suffer detrimental treatment from the colleagues who are trying to suck their way up the same ladder.
If workforces were educated on what these tactics looked and felt like, perhaps included in corporate codes of conduct, HR departments and management could identify potential issues and deal with them.
But this is not merely an HR concern. Previous research also shows a link between ingratiation, high turnover rates and poorer performance by the organisation as a whole.
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of sycophancy is the push for conformity when it comes to opinions. If leadership hears nothing but agreement, dangerous ideas can be reinforced. Things like the leader’s own skills or the competence of the organisation as a whole can become wildly exaggerated – with disastrous consequences.
When leaders are surrounded by “yes-men”, they’re deprived of critical input that could challenge assumptions or highlight potential flaws. This can lead to cognitive entrenchment where decision-makers become overconfident and resistant to change. Bad decisions then proceed unchecked, often escalating into systemic failures.
In return, this can lead to groupthink, a phenomenon where a desire for harmony overrides rational evaluation. Environments that suffer from groupthink often ignore red flags, silence whistleblowers and overvalue consensus. All of these things are damaging to an organisation’s ability to remain agile and competitive.
Which brings us back to Trump. In his case this isn’t a corporate crisis. It’s a geopolitical one. At stake is not shareholder value but national security and global stability.
With sycophants backing poor decisions, the risk ranges from damaged diplomacy to outright conflict. If loyalty replaces truth, the cost could be catastrophic. Trump’s regime may ultimately collapse under the weight of its own delusions – but the collateral damage could be profound.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
