Tag: president trump
Thom Tillis

After Trump Attacks, North Carolina's Sen. Tillis Says He'll Quit

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who had been poised for a highly competitive 2026 Senate race, announced Sunday that he will not run again.

His decision came shortly after he cast a “no” vote on a procedural motion tied to President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” Saturday. Following Tillis' vote, Trump launched a series of attacks against him via social media, threatening to back primary challenge against the North Carolina senator for opposing his domestic bill.

In a statement released Sunday afternoon, Tillis said, “In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species.”

He continued: "As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven’t exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home. It’s not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re‑election.”

Tillis' announcement led to strong reactions on social media.

Political commentator Sarah Longwell wrote on the social platform X: "Would be cool if instead of unconditional surrender these guys would use their power to beat back the forces that have so degraded the institutions they took an oath to protect."

Analyst Michael Baharaeen, reacting to the news, said: "Whoa. Well, there's one crucial building block in the Dems' uphill battle to winning back the Senate. This and ME are likely to be among the party's best pick-up opportunities of the cycle."

Journalist Vince Coglianese wrote: "Right after Trump announces that he’s searching for a Thom Tillis replacement, Tillis throws in the towel. He’s retiring."

Democratic strategist David Bergstein wrote: "The work that is being done by so many to shine a spotlight on how bad this bill is has created an unescapable political vice for the most vulnerable GOP Senator."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Why Trump's Iran Strike Hype Is Falling Flat

Why Trump's Iran Strike Hype Is Falling Flat

Whatever United States military forces may have achieved in last week's brief attack on Iranian nuclear sites — a question that will not be answered definitively anytime soon — we have learned again the most fundamental fact about the current occupant of the White House.

Under Donald Trump, the principal purpose of our military and diplomatic policies is not to enhance American national security or pursue any strategic objective. The most important goal of every U.S. action is childishly simple: to make Trump look heroic and feel powerful, no matter how pointless or destructive it otherwise proves to be.

And Americans, normally susceptible to spurious presidential appeals to nationalism and fear, seem to have noticed that Trump's little war had no plausible aim — and only put the nation in jeopardy of another ruinous "forever war."

Trump's motives in addressing Iran and its nuclear ambitions -- distorted by his unquenchable envy (and enmity) toward his predecessor Barack Obama -- have been questionable from the very moment he first stepped into the White House. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, delivered by the Obama diplomatic team and our European allies in 2015, severely restricted Iran's nuclear program.

It is now clear that Trump's withdrawal, effectively killing that agreement, led directly to the recent advances in the Iranian nuclear program, which in turn provoked Israel to mount its recent military campaign. Had the JCPOA held, as it would have with American support, there would have been no "emergency" need to blow up the Iranian nuclear sites now.

Trump himself created the crisis that he now seeks credit for ending, with his repeated claims that the munitions fired on Iran by American submarines and stealth bombers had "obliterated" the mullahs' nuclear industrial complex.

But did he end the crisis? Were those nuclear facilities and uranium stockpiles "totally destroyed"? Or did the Iranians somehow preserve their nuclear options in case of a military attack?

It would be surprising if they had failed to do so, since Trump — always childishly demanding global attention — foolishly boasted well in advance of his intentions to hit Iran. Having at first claimed that the U.S. would not get embroiled in Israel's military campaign, and indeed that he had tried to discourage it, the president grew jealous of the Israel Defense Forces' apparent success and determined to glom some glory for himself.

American intelligence agencies later told journalists that the biggest operational security problem in our Iran operations was Trump's egomaniacal posturing. The Iranians assuredly took notice and moved as much of their equipment and enriched uranium stockpiles as possible to secret locations.

Merely asking how it all transpired — and how it might have affected the successful "obliteration" of the Iranian nuclear program — was enough to enrage not only Trump but his national security team. The journalists who reported an initial bomb damage assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which found that the air raids had only set the Iranian drive back by "a few months," provoked a hysterical response from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He accused news outlets that revealed the DIA report of lacking patriotism and respect for the armed services, personally berated journalists, including a former Fox News colleague, and immediately ordered a leak investigation.

What Hegseth didn't do — and what Trump didn't do — was deny that the DIA had issued that damning report. Instead, they instantly and rather suspiciously produced a contradictory CIA estimate that reinforced Trump's original claims. Meanwhile, European intelligence agencies and other sources have indicated that, at the very least, Iran has kept a substantial stockpile of enriched uranium, enough to produce several weapons in the future.

When that will be, we cannot know for certain. What we do know is that the military attack on Iran, occurring even as the U.S. was supposedly negotiating with its leadership, has spurred that country and others to build the world's most dangerous weapons as quickly as possible.

Perhaps that is why nearly every poll now shows that Americans strongly disapprove of Trump's Iran misadventure. Foreign leaders have no reason to believe anything Trump says, and neither do we.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism(St. Martin's Press, 2024).

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Senate Parliamentarian Enrages GOP With Crushing Blow To Trump's Budget Bill

Senate Parliamentarian Enrages GOP With Crushing Blow To Trump's Budget Bill

The Senate parliamentarian delivered a significant setback to congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump’s extensive domestic agenda on Thursday, otherwise known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The highly unpopular legislation that’s so central to Trump’s policy goals was already on shaky ground because of its core premise: cutting entitlement programs like Medicaid to fund tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Now, about a week before the Trump administration’s self-imposed July 4 signing deadline, it’s also falling apart on procedural grounds.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, a nonpartisan adviser who helps senators navigate procedures and rules, determined that several key provisions of the legislation violate the Senate’s budget rules and cannot be included under the fast-track reconciliation process Republicans are using to bypass a Democratic filibuster. Among the casualties are limits on student loan repayment options and a controversial crackdown on states’ use of the “provider tax loophole” to secure more federal Medicaid dollars.

That last one presents a big problem. Nearly every state utilizes the loophole in some form, and senators from states that depend heavily on it—especially those with rural hospitals—have warned they won’t support the bill unless it’s amended.

MacDonough’s ruling forces GOP leaders back to the drawing board. If they cannot salvage the struck-down provisions, they will lose more than $500 billion in planned spending cuts, according to Bobby Kogan, a former Democratic Senate Budget Committee staffer now with the Center for American Progress. And unless they find a work-around, Republicans would need 60 votes to keep those provisions—an unlikely prospect given the GOP’s narrow Senate margin.

Meanwhile, the tax cuts at the core of the bill remain under review.

This isn’t the first time MacDonough has blocked parts of the GOP’s wishlist. She’s previously rejected attempts to cut SNAP benefits and limit federal judges’ authority to block Trump’s policies.

Her decision has sparked immediate outrage among conservatives, with some Republicans now openly calling for her removal.

“The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people. Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters,” Rep. Greg Steube of Florida posted on social media.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville went further, attacking the “WOKE parliamentarian” for rejecting cuts to states that fund health care for undocumented immigrants.

“This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP,” the Alabama senator wrote. “Unelected bureaucrats think they know better than U.S. Congressmen who are elected BY THE PEOPLE. Her job is not to push a woke agenda. THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP.”

Unsurprisingly, Democrats welcomed the ruling.

“Republicans are scrambling to rewrite parts of this bill to continue advancing their families lose, and billionaires win agenda,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon. “But Democrats stand ready to fully scrutinize any changes and ensure the Byrd Rule is enforced.”

MacDonough, for her part, has blocked many Democratic priorities, including raising the federal minimum wage to $15 and parts of the party’s immigration reform efforts. She is a neutral rules referee, not a political player. If Republicans dislike the process, they can always eliminate the filibuster, a tactic which effectively requires a 60-vote supermajority to pass legislation. So far, they have not.

Nevertheless, the parliamentarian’s ruling could prove decisive. Senate Republicans had hoped to vote this weekend or sooner to give the House time to finalize changes and get the bill to Trump’s desk before his holiday deadline. That timeline now appears uncertain.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune attempted to downplay the chaos.

“These are speed bumps along the way; we anticipated those and so we have contingency plans,” Thune said. He also added that Republicans wouldn’t try to overrule MacDonough’s guidance.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was less optimistic, suggesting the GOP would “probably” still hold a vote this weekend.

Behind the scenes, Republicans are trying to modify the provisions MacDonough struck down, though it remains unclear whether they can be tweaked or must be entirely removed. One GOP source told Axios that the party still hopes to “find a solution to achieve the desired results.”

If not, they’re stuck. And for Trump, it’s another prominent legislative obstacle—this time from an unelected rules referee standing between him and a desperately wanted victory.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

11,000 Could Die: Right-Wing Media Ignore Potential Impact Of Trump's Big Ugly Bill

11,000 Could Die: Right-Wing Media Ignore Potential Impact Of Trump's Big Ugly Bill

Two analyses of the House of Representatives’ version of President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” found that its deep Medicaid cuts — which right-wing media figures have supported for months — would result in more than 11,000 preventable deaths annually. When all aspects of the legislation are included, according to one of the analyses, the bill could cause an estimated 51,000 preventable deaths per year.

Right-wing media figures, however, have repeatedly claimed that people who “deserve” to be on Medicaid won’t be affected by the bill. Instead, they falsely argue that Medicaid will be strengthened for “the people that actually need it,” as Fox News’ Sean Hannity put it recently.

It remains to be seen exactly how much congressional Republicans will end up slashing Medicaid, as the House legislation passed on May 22 and the Senate is currently finalizing its own version.

The House version of the bill finances massive tax benefits for the extremely wealthy with its steep Medicaid cuts, which include the harshest Medicaid work requirements Congress has ever put forward.

The bill would also limit states’ ability to access federal funding by freezing what’s known as provider taxes, and punish states that use their own money to offer health insurance to immigrants.

The Senate’s proposed Medicaid cuts are even deeper than those in the House bill.

Researchers estimate Medicaid cuts in GOP bill could result in over 11,000 deaths annually

The two studies that examined the House’s legislation came to similar conclusions, though one focused primarily on the bill’s Medicaid provisions while the other took a look at the legislation as a whole.

The more recent study, from the Annals of Internal Medicine, was published June 17 and examined the House GOP’s proposed Medicaid cuts.

“Enactment of the House bill advanced in May would increase the number of uninsured persons by 7.6 million and the number of deaths by 16 642 annually, according to a mid-range estimate,” the authors write.

The authors stress that even this estimate could be an undercount, as their figures “exclude harms from lowering provider payments and shrinking benefits, as well as possible repercussions from states increasing taxes or shifting expenditures from other needs to make up for shortfalls in federal Medicaid funding.”

They also acknowledge that they and the Congressional Budget Office — which offers analysis of federal spending — made an “assumption that many of those losing Medicaid coverage would find alternative coverage,” which “may be overly optimistic.”

Conservative pundits claim Medicaid cuts won’t harm people who “deserve” health insurance

Previously, analysis from KFF found that the proposed bill would decimate hospitals that provide care to large numbers of Medicaid recipients, especially in rural areas, which would likely compound the harms of the legislation.

The other research into the Big Beautiful Bill’s effects, published June 3, was conducted by experts at the Yale School of Public Health, and was commissioned by two Senate committees working on their chambers’ version of the bill.

The Yale experts estimated that 7.7 million people would lose insurance as a result of the House bill, which would “result in an estimated 11,300 additional deaths annually due to lost access to Medicaid or ACA Marketplace coverage.”

The stark number increases dramatically when other aspects of the bill are included. The proposed legislation would end support for Medicare Savings Programs — cost sharing programs that allow Medicaid to pay Medicare premiums — leading to an estimated 1.38 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries losing their coverage. The authors write that the bill “would increase mortality by 18,200 per year due to reduced access to subsidized prescriptions.”

The House version also repeals nursing home staffing standards — which could lead to an estimated 13,000 deaths annually — and fails to extend the Affordable Care Act premium tax credit, which the authors write “is expected to push another 5 million Americans into uninsurance, resulting in 8,811 more deaths each year.”

In all, the authors estimate that the Big Beautiful Bill could result in more than 51,000 preventable deaths every year.

Right-wing media insists those who “deserve” coverage won’t be affected by the bill

These credible estimates are virtually absent from right-wing media coverage of the bill. To the contrary, conservative pundits have supported many of the most draconian aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill, including its burdensome and unnecessary work requirements — one of the key mechanisms in the legislation to kick people off of Medicaid.

Conservative pundits have also frequently pushed the false narrative that the Republican legislation won’t harm people who “deserve” health insurance, whether that’s Medicaid or private plans purchased through the ACA.

  • Fox News host Sean Hannity dismissed the Yale study’s conclusions, repeating that the cuts to Medicaid were “nonexistent.” He added that his reading of the bill was that “the only thing that would be cut are those people that don't belong on the rolls that have given fraudulent information that will be weeded out of services they never deserved in the first place.” [Fox News, Hannity, 6/5/25]
  • On his radio show, Hannity said the bill’s so-called Medicaid reforms would only target “able-bodied” people running “scams,” who “are sources of legitimate savings without reducing benefits to the people that actually need it.” [Premiere Radio Network, The Sean Hannity Show, 6/6/25]
  • The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles claimed that the bill “is not taking health care funding away from the people who deserve it,” but rather, “it’s taking Medicaid funding away from the 1.4 million illegals who are on Medicaid.” Knowles added, “It's taking Medicaid funding away from people who are abusing the system, who are not legally entitled to it, people who refuse to work, people who don't meet even basic requirements to avail themselves of health care and welfare.” [The Daily Wire, The Michael Knowles Show, 6/4/25]
  • On Hannity, former House speaker and current Fox contributor Newt Gingrich argued that the proposed Medicaid cuts will not “take anybody deserving of help off the Medicaid rolls,” but will impact “illegal immigrants … people who refuse to work and … people who are crooks.” He went on, saying, “Why the Democratic party would want to be the party of illegal immigrants, crooks, and people who refuse to work is beyond me.” [Fox News, Hannity, 6/3/25]
  • Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum said that Medicaid “expanded greatly over Covid — people got used to a lot of these benefits and they don’t want to give them up,” but that cuts are necessary so “that people who deserve these benefits can get them.” Her guest, Fox Business host Charles Payne, previously said, “Those who can work and are getting these benefits, they should work.” [Fox News, The Story With Martha MacCallum, 5/20/25]
  • On his War Room podcast, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon said that “we don’t want to cut Medicaid to the folks that need it” adding that “25% of MAGA is on Medicaid … but it’s got to be very restrictive.” He continued: “Two and a half million illegal aliens have all to go,” and suggested that work requirements should be for “80 hours a week,” rather than 80 hours a month, as the House bill mandates. [Real America’s Voice, War Room, 5/19/25; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/12/25]
  • On Fox News, former congressional adviser Emily Domenech said, “When it comes to Medicaid, we’re looking at opportunities to cut back on the waste, fraud, and abuse that make the programs cost too much and take away from the people who really deserve them.” [Fox News, The Faulkner Focus, 5/16/25]

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World