Sole House Democrat Who Voted To Keep Government Open Blames Far-Left Groups For Shutdown
by Daily Caller News Foundation
October 1, 2025
Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden said Wednesday that the government shutdown has been “driven” by the “demands” of “far-left groups.”
Golden was the sole Democrat to vote in favor of House Republicans’ stopgap funding plan on Sept. 19. The congressman’s comments come after Senate Democrats blocked a GOP spending bill to fund the government late Tuesday evening, kicking off a government shutdown on Wednesday.
“This government shutdown is the result of hardball politics driven by the demands far-left groups are making for Democratic Party leaders to put on a show of their opposition to President [Donald] Trump,” Golden wrote in a statement posted to X. “The shutdown is hurting Americans and our economy, and the irony is it has only handed more power to the president.”
This government shutdown is the result of hardball politics driven by the demands far-left groups are making for Democratic Party leaders to put on a show of their opposition to President Trump.
The shutdown is hurting Americans and our economy, and the irony is it has only…
“This fight is ostensibly about health care, so let me be clear: I opposed the GOP’s Medicaid cuts and I want to extend the ACA tax credits. But some of my colleagues in the majority party have reasonable concerns about tax credits going to high-income households. There’s room and time to negotiate. But normal policy disagreements are no reason to subject our constituents to the continued harm of this shutdown,” the congressman’s post continued.
Golden represents a seat which Trump won by nine points in the 2024 presidential election.
The Democratic lawmaker wrote in part of a statement following the vote that “there’s a lot of important work to be done in Congress, none of which will be any easier if Mainers are suffering the harms of a government shutdown.”
“Even Democrats admit it: the shutdown is THEIR fault. Rep. Jared Golden says it’s driven by far-left demands & political games,” Republican Michigan Rep. Lisa McClain said Wednesday in a post to X. “Families suffer while Hakeem, Schumer and Dems play politics.”
Several analysts and Republican lawmakers previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer chose to bring on a government shutdown as part of an effort to appease the wishes of far-left Democrats.
Indivisible, a left-wing group that has received millions in grants from the George Soros-founded Open Society Foundations, made headlines for running a campaign to pressure Democratic senators to not vote for a GOP-backed funding proposal to avert a shutdown. As of Wednesday afternoon, Indivisible has a landing page on its website titled, “STOP THE TRUMP SHUTDOWN.”
Just three Democratic Caucus members voted alongside Republicans to prevent a government shutdown on Tuesday evening: Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Angus King of Maine.
On Tuesday, Fetterman said in part of a statement that his vote “was for our country over my party,” while Cortez Masto said in a press release that she “cannot support a costly shutdown that would hurt Nevada families and hand even more power to this reckless administration.” Meanwhile, King — an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats — claimed in a Tuesday statement that “by shutting the government,” Democrats are “actually giving [President] Donald Trump more power.”
A New York Times/Siena University survey released Tuesday found that 65% of respondents said Democrats should not plunge the nation into a government shutdown even if “their demands are not met.”
Additionally, House Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday in an X post that “Democrats are holding the American government HOSTAGE with wild partisan demands.”
This morning @HouseGOP and @SenateGOP STOOD UNITED for the American people as the Democrat-led government shutdown begins.
Democrats are holding the American government HOSTAGE with wild partisan demands — including giving taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens.
Hung Cao, Navy Vet And Former Republican Candidate, Confirmed As Undersecretary Of Navy
by Daily Caller News Foundation
October 1, 2025
The Senate voted Wednesday to confirm retired Navy captain and former Republican Senate candidate in Virginia Hung Cao as the Undersecretary of the Navy.
The vote went along party lines, 52 in favor and 45 against, with Republican Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski being the only GOP dissenter, according to the official tally. Cao has long advocated for reforming the military to focus on lethality and rebuilding the lagging U.S. Navy amid a massive Chinese naval buildup threatening Indo-pacific security.
The confirmation comes amid the first day of a government shutdown caused by congressional Democrats refusing to authorize a continuing resolution to fund the government. The shutdown is the first since 2019.
The Undersecretary of the Navy is the number two office in the branch’s secretariat, serving under Navy Secretary John Phelan.
“Years of neglect and mismanagement have resulted in ships that cannot get underway, aircrafts that cannot fly and submarines that cannot dive because we have deferred maintenance requirements as a cost cutting tool,” Cao said during his confirmation hearing in June. “We cannot solve the problems of tomorrow with the solutions of the yesterday.”
The Secretary of the Navy’s office did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Labor unions representing hundreds of thousands of government employees sued the Trump administration over its threats to fire federal workers during the government shutdown.
By Avery Lotz
The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees argue that the White House’s directives are unlawful and politically motivated.
The shutdown began after the Senate failed to pass a funding bill Tuesday. No compromise is currently in sight. The lawsuit names the Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought, and the Office of Personnel Management, led by Scott Kupor, as defendants. It challenges an OMB memorandum urging agencies to issue “Reduction in Force” notices to employees in programs not aligned with the president’s priorities.
Union lawyers say the guidance is an attempt to punish federal workers and pressure Congress, citing partisan language on agency websites. The case has been assigned to District Judge Vince Chhabria.
During shutdowns, agencies decide which staff are “excepted” from furloughs. Updated OPM guidance authorizes work to proceed on RIF notices, which unions argue violates federal law. President Donald Trump has said “a lot” of employees could lose their jobs.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House Republican leaders refused requests from Democrats to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) on Tuesday, saying she will be sworn in when the House returns to regular session.
By Emily Brooks and Mike Lillis
The move deprives a petition of the last signature it needs to force a vote on a bill to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, a push that Republican leaders and President Trump oppose.
Grijalva, who was elected last week in a special contest to replace her father, the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), has already vowed to sign the discharge petition as soon as she’s sworn in, and the bipartisan lawmakers pushing to release the Epstein files had hoped to launch the process as quickly as possible.
Grijalva is in Washington this week along with a host of House Democrats who returned to the Capitol during a recess to pressure GOP leaders to negotiate a bipartisan government funding bill. Although there are no votes scheduled, the House floor opened up briefly at noon on Tuesday for a pro forma session, a routine procedure allowing one chamber to pause floor activities for long stretches without the consent of the other.
Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) presided over Tuesday’s pro forma session, gaveling out and refusing to recognize Democrats shouting on the floor as they attempted to force a vote on a Democratic proposal to keep the government open. He did not swear in Grijalva.
“Historically, you do it when the House is in session other than pro forma,” Griffith said after the session when asked about not swearing in Grijalva.
Grijalva noted that Florida Republicans were sworn in during a pro forma session earlier this year, on April 2, the day after their special elections. The House had been in session the day before.
“There’s no reason why I couldn’t have been sworn in, and it’s very problematic, because we’re facing a government shutdown. We’re going to have constituents who have questions, and there is nobody there to answer questions,” Grijalva said.
She said she has not had any direct communication with the Speaker’s office on when she will be sworn in.
“Your guess is as good as mine,” Grijalva said on the timing.
A spokesperson for the Speaker’s office, though, indicated that Grijalva will be sworn in when the House returns to regular session — currently scheduled for Oct. 7.
“As is standard practice, with the House now having received the appropriate paperwork from the state, the Speaker’s Office intends to schedule a swearing in for the Representative-elect when the House returns to session,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
The House was previously scheduled to be in session on Monday and Tuesday, but Republican leaders canceled those voting days as they aim to pressure Senate Democrats to accept a GOP-crafted stopgap funding measure.
A shutdown would not prevent Grijalva from being sworn in. The full House was sworn in during a government shutdown when a new Congress started in January 2019.
Highlighting Grijalva’s arrival, the Democratic Women’s Caucus wrote a letter to Johnson on Tuesday morning urging her immediate swearing in.
“It is common practice in the House of Representatives that Representatives-elect are sworn in immediately following their decisive election, with some being sworn in as little as 24 hours after they have won,” wrote Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), who chairs the group.
“This instance should be no different.”
Johnson’s decision to refuse the Democrats’ entreaties has no bearing on the current shutdown debate, because it doesn’t change the House voting math for passing bills. The chamber currently has 219 Republicans and 213 Democrats, and the Republicans’ small cushion will be the same even if the Democrats add a seat. On any party-line vote, Republicans can afford just two defections, assuming all members are present and voting.
But Grijalva’s swearing-in would be a major development for the discharge petition to force a vote on the Epstein files, led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). It is just one signature away from reaching 218 names, the number needed to bypass Republican leadership and force action on the House floor.
Just three Republicans in addition to Massie — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Nancy Mace (S.C.), and Lauren Boebert (Colo.) — have signed the petition. Republican leaders argue that the bill doesn’t adequately protect victims and that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is already investigating the Epstein matter.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), who was elected earlier this month to the seat that was held by the late Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), had successfully exerted similar pressure on GOP leadership by driving to the Capitol the day after he was elected and demanding to be sworn in so he could sign the discharge petition. Walkinshaw was sworn in on a day the House was voting, not in a pro forma session.
The administration’s abrupt effort to repurpose the funds mere days before the end of the fiscal year appears to be illegal, the judge said.
By Kyle Cheney
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Tuesday from permanently steering $233 million in FEMA disaster relief funds away from 12 blue states, issuing a restraining order just hours before a deadline that would have seen the funds lost for good.
U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee to a Rhode Island-based court, said the administration’s abrupt decision to repurpose the funds from those states — just days before the Sept. 30 end of the current fiscal year — seemed to be plainly illegal. Her ruling ensures that the funds remain available while the states continue to litigate to reclaim them.
It’s “yet another case where the administration is saying … I’m going to do what I want to do and not what the law says and make the court make me,” McElroy said at a hastily convened court hearing Tuesday.
Earlier this month, McElroy similarly barred the Trump administration from attempting to coerce homelessness organizations to adopt gender-related policies.
Her new decision ensures that when the fiscal year ends at midnight Tuesday, the funds will still be available in case the states win their legal battle.
An attorney for Illinois, which is leading the multistate lawsuit, said the administration offered just a four-word explanation for rescinding the FEMA funding from the 12 states: “Adjusted per DHS directive.”
The states say the Trump administration’s last-second decision to pull the funding seemed intended to punish states that the Trump administration has deemed to be uncooperative with its immigration enforcement priorities.
That’s notable, they say, because another federal judge in Rhode Island, George W. Bush appointee William Smith, ruled last week that the administration’s bid to coerce states to comply with its immigration enforcement priorities was illegal.
McElroy said the administration’s decision to pull the funds so quickly after Smith’s decision was “of great concern.”
“This sort of last minute changing of the way the funding happens, and especially when it happens right in the wake of Judge Smith’s decision, is concerning,” McElroy said.
A Justice Department lawyer had urged McElroy to reject the states’ emergency effort to preserve the funding, saying it would deprive other states where the Department of Homeland Security had intended to reallocate the funds.
But McElroy said she wanted to “preserve the status quo” and ensure that the funds would still be there if the states prevail in their lawsuit.
U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Windsor Republican, is one of just four Republicans in Congress supporting efforts to force a floor vote on releasing U.S. Department of Justice case files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
By Lindsey Toomer
Legislators leading the effort have said a petition that would force a vote on a resolution requiring the full release of the Epstein case files has enough signatures to pass, but allies of President Donald Trump continue to oppose a floor vote on the issue.
The resolution, led by U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, was introduced before Congress went into recess, but House Speaker Mike Johnson let the members go early to avoid a vote on the resolution.
Boebert, the only Colorado Republican to sign the petition, has long sought an aggressive Epstein investigation and called for a special counsel to take the case this summer. The four Republicans who signed the discharge petition are Boebert, Massie, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina.
All four Colorado Democrats in the House — U.S. Reps. Jason Crow of Centennial, Diana DeGette of Denver, Joe Neguse of Lafayette and Brittany Pettersen of Lakewood — signed the petition.
The government’s investigation into Epstein’s sexual abuse has dogged and splintered House Republicans since July, when Trump’s administration declared it would not share any further information on the powerful and well-connected financier, with whom Trump was friends. Epstein died in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal charges of sex trafficking minors.
Boebert’s office did not respond to a Newsline request for comment.
Speeches by national leaders at the opening of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) have multiple goals and various audiences. Leaders of small countries hope to raise concerns with large countries in a setting where they can be the center of attention, if only for 15 minutes. Leaders of ostracized countries often seek to justify the behavior that got them ostracized in the first place. Some speeches are aimed at the leaders in the room, while others are aimed at the folks back home. Some are aimed at allied leaders, and others at competitors and still others at enemies.
By Peterr
Under normal circumstances, preparation for the US president’s speech is probably on par with preparing the State of the Union address to Congress. Both speeches utilize folks from multiple agencies and both are subject to weeks and months of internal debates about what will and will not get into the speech. While the SOTU address is as long as the President wants to make it, the UN politely asks that UNGA addresses be kept to 15 minutes or less, because so many leaders will be speaking. The UNGA speech is primarily foreign policy, while the SOTU is more domestic, but both are critical to laying out the president’s – and by extension, the USA’s – positions on all kinds of things.
For UNGA, the State Department takes the lead (broadly speaking) in preparing drafts and posing options to the final decisionmakers in the White House. Other agencies like DOD, Treasury, Commerce, and DHS, as well as folks like the Director of National Intelligence, all weigh in and put their requests into the funnel out of which the final draft emerges.
While all the prep work on the speech is under way, so too is the prep work for listening to the speeches delivered by other leaders. Is it more of the same, are there new policy nuances, or even major changes of direction being conveyed? Different analysts at State, DOD, and the Intelligence community will prepare a list of “what to listen for” points as they get ready to listen to the UNGA speeches from the countries within their purview. Once the speeches have been made, these same folks will then be sharing their analysis with their superiors and the White House. “Here’s what we heard . . . , here’s what it means . . . , and here’s how it may affect our own policies and responses . . .”
Meanwhile, every other foreign ministry and intelligence service in the world does the same with the UNGA speech of the President of the United States of America. Especially when that president is Donald J. Trump.
So what will these folks notice about Trump’s speech, and what will their analysis of his speech lead them to think or do?
First, they will notice the absolute dichotomy between policy prescriptions and petty personal grievances. Yes, the speechwriting team and the professionals behind them put a lot of substantive stuff into the draft of the speech that went on the teleprompter, but Trump went off-script so much that it was easy for that stuff to get lost in the verbal flood of whining about his domestic political enemies alternated with his own personal self-promotion. If the substance was prepared to fill the 15 minute time slot, the whining and boasting filled another 45 minutes or so. That 3:1 ratio speaks volumes about what matters to Trump: “Three parts me, and one part everyone else. And that ratio is me being generous to everyone else.”
Second, even in the substantive parts of the speech, the presentation was arrogant and insulting. (Why yes, I do think Stephen Miller had a large role in shaping the speech. Why do you ask?) Trump’s “I alone can fix it” from campaigns gone by was echoed in Trump’s declaration at UNGA that he has always been right about everything. From immigration to energy to wars to peacemaking to cultural issues to history, Trump’s assertion that he is always right and that the world would be better off if everyone just bowed down and did what he said was at the center of his speech. The prepared draft of the speech might have been more polite about it, but the message was the same. All the world could see how Trump views them — little kids who need to listen to Daddy, and then do what Daddy says so that they don’t get punished.
Third, Trump’s UNGA speech was a confirmation and distillation of something these folks have seen since 2015 from Trump: facts are optional to Donald Trump. They will see that science takes a back seat to whatever Trump’s particular views and preferences are. Signed agreements, especially those signed by someone other that Trump, are optional, not binding. Historical facts that do not fit with Trump’s worldview are overlooked, ignored, or blithely dismissed as irrelevant. Leaders and nations who seek to move Trump and US policies with fact-based arguments will have a very difficult, if not impossible task if they follow this route.
Fourth, Trump has no use for the opinions of other leaders, unless they comport with his own opinions. Dozens of nations call what Israel is doing in Gaza “genocide” but Trump does not give a damn. Countries of all political stripes recognize the reality of climate change (even as they might differ in how it should be addressed), but not Donald Trump.
Fifth, this speech confirms yet again that what Trump desperately seeks is validation. In his head, he dreams of giving his own version of Sally Field’s academy award acceptance speech — “I haven’t had an orthodox career and I’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time [I won] I didn’t feel it, but this time I feel it. And I can’t deny the fact that you like me. Right now, you like me! Thank you.”
Sixth, these analysts from other nations regularly ask themselves “How long will Trump hold to a given position?” He renegotiated the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico in 2019 and finalized it in 2020, only to come back in 2025 and ask “who would have ever sign a thing like this?” Grudges over personal slights he will carry with him for decades, but agreements with other leaders and other nations are much less predictable.
The danger to all of this is one basic thing: the world is learning –again — not to listen to the United States.
When Trump and RFK Jr. issued their untethered-to-scientific-analysis declaration that Tylenol should not be used by pregnant women, not only did the US medical community loudly shout “NO!” but so did medical leaders around the world (UK, Spain, India, Australia, etc.). The US has a long record of leadership in medical research and treatment — think of the elimination of smallpox and the work to do the same with polio — but now? Around the world, folks are asking what used to be an unimaginable question: Should we listen to anything medical coming out of the CDC?
When Trump made his big Liberation Day announcements and sought to put tariffs on almost every nation, he followed up on this with all kinds of exceptions, adjustments, and incoherent statements. Today the tariffs might look like this, but next week they went down, then a month later some of them went higher than before . . . and what the hell will they look like next year?
When NGOs and other leaders around the world found the rug yanked out from under them when Trump used DOGE to cancel grants for things like malaria prevention and anti-AIDS programs, as well as letting US food aid funneled through USAID rot in warehouses rather than be delivered to those who feed the hungry, they had to ask if the word of the US is worth anything any more. “We had a five year agreement – you put up this and we’ll handle that — and after 3 years, you reneged. Why should we trust you the next time you want to make a deal?”
Trump and his lackeys can laugh at the world all they want, but if the financial world follows the lead of the medical world and the scientific world, and ceases to trust that the word of the US is good, the US will be in a world of hurt. A non-trivial portion of US debt is held by foreign governments. When the Canadian public decided not to travel to the US or buy US bourbon, that hit the US hospitality industry hard. If foreign governments decide that rather than buying US treasury bonds, they’d prefer bonds from Germany or France or Australia, that will mean the US government would have to offer higher rates of return in order to get the money needed to pay for tax breaks for the rich run the US government.
In the world of international affairs, trust matters, and Donald Trump is pissing away what it took decades to earn. Good luck with that, Secretary of State/National Security Advisor/Archivist of the United States Marco Rubio.
Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader John Thune, are trying to keep the message simple: The GOP wants to keep agencies open for a few more weeks while negotiations continue while Democrats are asking for unreasonable concessions.
Speaker Mike Johnson and the House GOP are all in on a message focusing on how the Democratic wish list would undo Republican-passed provisions barring undocumented immigrants from accessing public services.
And then there’s President Donald Trump, who delved even deeper into the culture wars Tuesday when he accused the other party of seeking to “force Taxpayers to fund Transgender surgery for minors” as part of the negotiations — an accusation that has puzzled even some fellow Republicans.
The diverging messages from GOP leaders comes after Trump reversed his decision to hold a White House meeting with top Democratic leaders — an about-face that came after Johnson and Thune privately warned him that it would undercut the party’s negotiating position.
Taken together, the visible cracks in the GOP front are raising internal concerns as party leaders face off against Democrats who are largely united behind a plan to focus on health care — particularly an extension of expiring insurance subsidies.
“There have been some unforced errors, clearly,” said one senior House GOP aide granted anonymity to speak candidly about Republicans’ strategy so far.
The silly intervention from Russ Vought merits just a short mention.
The White House further scrambled the GOP strategy late Wednesday when it circulated a draft memo instructing agencies to create plans for mass firings of federal workers if Democrats don’t relent and a shutdown occurs. That alarmed some Hill Republicans who saw it as an unnecessary provocation that, in the words of one, “would give Democrats an excuse to vote against” the GOP-led stopgap — and muddy their message that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were unreasonable hostage-takers.
What Vought succeeded in doing by threatening to do what he has already done — mass unlawful firings — is get a lot of press coverage. A number of outlets took the bait, claiming without any apparent rational thought that this would increase the pressure on Dems.
Most, when quoting Chuck Schumer’s response, are excising a key bit: Just yesterday, GSA had to order a bunch of workers back on the job.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) says a new memo from the White House budget office warning that mass firings could be on the table if there’s a government shutdown is “an attempt at intimidation.”
Schumer, who was scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House Thursday to discuss a funding deal before Trump cancelled the meeting, predicted that federal courts would overturn any attempt by the administration to use a shutdown as a justification to fire thousands of federal workers.
“Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government. These unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back, just like they did as recently as today,” Schumer said in a statement late Wednesday. [my emphasis]
GSA just admitted that you can’t simply fire masses of people without incurring more costs down the road.
Hundreds of federal employees who lost their jobs in Elon Musk’s cost-cutting blitz are being asked to return to work.
The General Services Administration has given the employees — who managed government workspaces — until the end of the week to accept or decline reinstatement, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press. Those who accept must report for duty on Oct. 6 after what amounts to a seven-month paid vacation, during which time the GSA in some cases racked up high costs — passed along to taxpayers — to stay in dozens of properties whose leases it had slated for termination or were allowed to expire.
“Ultimately, the outcome was the agency was left broken and understaffed,” said Chad Becker, a former GSA real estate official. “They didn’t have the people they needed to carry out basic functions.”
Becker, who represents owners with government leases at Arco Real Estate Solutions, said GSA has been in a “triage mode” for months. He said the sudden reversal of the downsizing reflects how Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency had gone too far, too fast.
And as Schumer noted, Vought is doing this whether or not there’s a shutdown. It is, in fact, one of the core reasons why Dems can’t simply pass a continuing resolution, because Vought has already usurped Congress’ authority.
How did the both-sides media not see this? How did they not understand that this makes Vought threat look like a desperate attempt to regain some advantage that Trump pissed away by scheduling a meeting but then — at Mike Johnson and John Thune’s request — canceling?
Mike Lawler appears to understand it. He just talked over CNN’s John Berman for 45 seconds to dodge a question about mass firings.
I remain agnostic about whether Dems can win this shutdown. This report, about how the courts would have to shut down most business in a matter of days, not weeks, cause me grave concern, for reasons I laid out here.
But thus far, Republicans seem intent on using the shutdown to demonstrate in more visible fashion the need for it.
Budget chief Russ Vought proposed cutting $72 million for universities after promising lawmakers the funding would remain untouched.
By Marcia Brown
The White House is canceling millions of dollars that dozens of universities use to research food production, despite budget chief Russ Vought’s promise to leave that money untouched.
Using a controversial loophole to cancel federal cash at the end of the fiscal year — which comes to a close at midnight Tuesday — President Donald Trump has targeted $4 billion in federal spending on international aid and development. That includes $72 million for USAID’s Feed the Future Innovation labs, which is popular with Republicans.
Vought’s reversal is the latest example of how Trump’s sweeping attempt to claim authority over the federal budget without congressional approval is running into his own party’s priorities.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), whose state hosts the Fish Innovation Lab through Mississippi State University, sought assurance from Vought at a congressional hearing earlier this year that the funding would be preserved.
“The lab’s work truly illustrates the proverb, ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime,’” Hyde-Smith said. “Rather than giving other countries food, we are teaching them how to feed themselves through modern aquaculture practices.”
Vought assured her at the time he didn’t intend to target the labs’ funding.
“We will still have $5 billion nearly in this funding for priorities and programs like this, of which this will be protected,” he said. “We have no desire in this rescission package to touch that funding that seems to be so successful.”
Then, in August, Vought declared the unilateral cancellation of every dollar in the account that funds the labs, in an end-run around Congress. The Supreme Court has since ruled that Trump can withhold billions of dollars in question, effectively blessing the gambit the president is using to cancel federal cash without Congress’ consent.
The Office of Management and Budget and Hyde-Smith didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.
Vought has repeatedly disputed assertions by lawmakers from both parties, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and legal experts that the maneuver — a so-called pocket recession — is illegal.
One person who formerly worked on Feed the Future programming said that the labs’ research didn’t just help other countries, but also the U.S. It has helped develop ways to counter a pest abroad, which can in turn set the U.S. up for success when the pest arrives on American shores.
“Climate change, weather extremes, pressure from pests, all of that stuff is just increasing and we’re really just shooting ourselves in the foot,” said the person, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. “Those are things that are not going to stop just because we decide to take funding away from it.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed Lisa Cook to remain as a Federal Reserve governor for now, declining to act on the Trump administration’s effort to immediately remove her from the central bank.
By MARK SHERMAN
In a brief unsigned order, the high court said it would hear arguments in January over Republican President Donald Trump’s effort to force Cook off the Fed board.
The court will consider whether to block a lower-court ruling in Cook’s favor while her challenge to her firing by Trump continues.
The high-court order was a rare instance of Trump not quickly getting everything he wants from the justices in an emergency appeal.
Separately, the justices are hearing arguments in December in a separate but related legal fight over Trump’s actions to fire members of the boards that oversee other independent federal agencies. The case concerns whether Trump can fire those officials at will.
But a second issue in the case could bear directly on Cook’s fate: whether federal judges have the authority to prevent the firings or instead may only order back pay for officials who were wrongly dismissed.
Trump had sought to oust Cook before the September meeting of the Fed’s interest rate-setting committee. But a judge ruled that the firing was illegal, and a divided appeals court rejected the Trumps administration’s emergency appeal.
A day after the meeting concluded with a one-quarter of a percentage point reduction in a key interest rate, the administration turned to the Supreme Court in a new emergency appeal.
The White House campaign to unseat Cook marks an unprecedented bid to reshape the Fed board, which was designed to be largely independent from day-to-day politics. No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the Fed’s 112-year history.
Cook, who was appointed to the Fed board by Democratic President Joe Biden, has said she will not leave her job and won’t be “bullied” by Trump. One of her lawyers, Abbe Lowell, has said she “will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor.”
Separately, Senate Republicans recently confirmed Stephen Miran, Trump’s nominee to an open spot on the Fed’s board. Both Cook and Miran took part in the Fed’s recent meeting. Miran was the sole dissenting vote, preferring a larger cut.
The next opportunity for Cook to cast a vote will be at the meeting of the Fed’s interest rate setting committee, scheduled for Oct. 28-29.
Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud because she appeared to claim two properties, in Michigan and Georgia, as “primary residences” in June and July 2021, before she joined the Fed board. Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home.
“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his Supreme Court filing.
Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Cook specified that her Atlanta condo would be a “vacation home,” according to a loan estimate she obtained in May 2021. In a form seeking a security clearance, she described it as a “2nd home.” Both documents appear to undercut the administration’s claims of fraud.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration had not satisfied a legal requirement that Fed governors can only be fired “for cause,” which she said was limited to misconduct while in office. Cook joined the Fed’s board in 2022.
Cobb also held that Trump’s firing would have deprived Cook of her due process, or legal right, to contest the firing.
By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington rejected the administration’s request to let Cook’s firing proceed.
NEW YORK (AP) — On this, at least, the Democrats agree: It’s time to fight.
By STEVE PEOPLES
Whether far-left activists, Washington moderates or rural conservatives, Democratic leaders across the political spectrum are shrugging off the risks and embracing a government shutdown they say is needed to push back against President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress.
For Democrats, the shutdown fight marks a line in the sand born from months of frustration with their inability to stop Trump’s norm-busting leadership. And they will continue to fight, regardless of the practical or political consequences, they say.
“It’s a rare point of unification,” said Jim Kessler, of the moderate Democratic group Third Way.
“Absolutely there are risks,” he said. “But you’re hearing it from all wings of the Democratic Party: The fight is the victory. They want a fight. And they’re going to get one.”
As the shutdown begins, there are few signs of cracks across the Democratic Party’s diverse coalition.
Even progressive critics from the party’s activist wing are applauding Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, who are insisting that any government spending package must extend health care subsidies that are set to expire at the year’s end. Trump, backed by the Republicans who control Congress, insists on supporting only a “clean” spending package that excludes the health care measure.
Trump blames ‘radical left’
The fight is already ugly as Trump uses his presidential bully pulpit — and taxpayer-funded government resources — to cast blame on the Democrats.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s website on Tuesday welcomed all visitors with this message: “The Radical Left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people unless they get their $1.5 trillion wish list of demands. The Trump administration wants to keep the government open for the American people.”
The president himself posted on social media a deepfake video of Schumer implying that Democrats are fighting to give free health care to immigrants in the country illegally. The fake video, widely condemned as racist, depicted Jeffries with a Mexican sombrero and fake mustache.
In a press conference, Jeffries offered a harsh message to the president.
“The next time you have something to say about me, don’t cop out through a racist and fake AI video. When I’m back in the Oval Office, say it to my face,” the top House Democrat said.
‘I’d rather be us than them’
Privately, political operatives from both sides concede that government shutdowns are bad for both parties. But with Democrats dug in, the Trump administration appeared almost eager to shut down the government this time — having already threatened the mass firing of federal workers in the event of a shutdown.
And as the GOP blames its rivals in the other party, Democrats say they are confident voters understand that Trump’s party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress — and, therefore, Republicans will suffer more political consequences for the chaos in Washington.
“I think I’d rather be us than them in this fight,” veteran Democratic strategist James Carville said. “The incumbent party will suffer more.”
And yet Carville acknowledged that Democratic leadership in Washington had little choice but to take a hard line in the budget negotiations with Trump’s GOP. The party’s activist base, he said, demanded it.
Frustrated progressives have been screaming for months at Democratic leaders, who have limited power in Washington as the minority party, to use more creative tactics to stop Trump. They are getting their wish this week.
“They’re finally not just rolling over and playing dead,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the progressive activist group Indivisible. “Indivisible leaders are cheering them on.”
After Jeffries accused Trump of “bigotry” for an AI-generated video, Trump posted a similar video belittling his response.
By Aaron Pellish
President Donald Trump posted another deepfake AI-generated video of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Tuesday hours before the federal government is expected to shut down, further signaling the significant divide between the two parties.
On Monday, Trump posted a vulgar AI-generated video of Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaking outside the White House. The video portrayed Jeffries wearing a mustache and a sombrero while mariachi music plays in the background.
Jeffries condemned the deepfake as “bigotry” in a social media response and called it a “disgusting video” in an MSNBC interview later Monday evening.
On Tuesday, Trump shared a clip of Jeffries’ MSNBC interview criticizing the original video, again adding an AI-generated mustache and sombrero. The latest video features four depictions of the president playing mariachi music as Jeffries speaks.
Trump’s repeated antagonization of Jeffries sets the tone for what may be difficult and drawn-out negotiations over a government-funding solution as lawmakers on both sides continue to dig into their positions.
During a House Democratic conference presser on Tuesday, Jeffries dared Trump to confront him personally rather than “cop out” through the AI-generated videos.
Later, in an interview on MSNBC, Jeffries sought to downplay the videos.
“We need from the president of the United States an individual who actually is focused on doing his job, as opposed to engaging in racist or bigoted stereotypes designed to try to distract or throw us off as Democrats from what we need to do on behalf of the American people,” Jeffries said.
Trump also posted several photos of his Oval Office meeting on Monday with Jeffries, Schumer, Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson. Two images shared by Trump show the four Congressional leaders in conversation. A third shows Trump pointing at Jeffries with a sneer. All three images feature “Trump 2028” hats on the president’s desk.
The government is expected to shut down just after 12 a.m. Wednesday.
A Shutdown Could Restore America To True Constitutional Governance
By Ted Noel
Oct. 01, 2025
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” US Constitution, Article II, §1, Clause 1.
The Constitution starts with a Preamble, or statement of purpose. Article I describes the Legislative branch, Article II the Presidency, and Article III the Judiciary. Those are the only branches of our federal government. Articles IV-VII are largely devoted to various processes. It would seem that this would be a pretty simple set of ideas for almost any sentient commentator to understand.
Yet we hear a constant drumbeat of “the Department of Justice has to operate independently from the President!” This comes from numerous legal commentators, mostly on the left, who think that presidential oversight of the DOJ is tantamount to Vito Corleone managing the New York Police Department.
The headline on the September 30 Dispatch email newsletter reads, “Trump’s Politicized DOJ.” This supposedly neutral outlet went on at length about how Trump fired the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and installed his own former legal counsel, Lindsey Halligan (“and a former Miss Colorado USA semifinalist”), to the post. Pronto, right after a prod from the President on Truth Social, we get the Comey indictment, meaning that “justice” equals “retribution.” Not!
Horror of horrors! Another attractive woman is in a high government post! Who knows what moniker will be hung on her to join “DHS Barbie” (DHS Secretary Kristi Noem) and “Pam Blondie” (Attorney General Pam Bondi)? How sexist can one be?
Trump married a beautiful woman and has had a number of attractive high achievers on his (Yuge!) staff. Is that a crime? Or is it simply that the left is so overpopulated with women who would repel most self-respecting men that pleasant physical attributes have to be denigrated? Right. They’re just jealous of Sydney Sweeney.
In the world of legal analysis, the concern is something called “the unitary Executive theory.” Big government advocates and a lot of misinformed “good government” dupes actually believe that there are four branches of government. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial are, by congressional fiat, overseen by the “Expert” branch. Supposedly, there are tasks that are just too technical for supervision by any elected official. These require “subject matter experts.”
Our experience with subject matter experts should inform us (we, the People, the ultimate subject matter experts on government) that everything the government does impairs us. COVID is a classic.
We were told by Anthony “I am science” Fauci that we didn’t need masks since it was spread by contact. It wasn’t, and we knew that, but we still wasted our hard-earned money on gallons of hand sanitizer, the only benefit of which was to pad the pockets of manufacturers and alcohol distillers. Then he decreed that we did, in fact, need masks, and double masking was even better. All the while, he attended baseball games without a mask.
And then we have his infamous “social distancing,” which in Florida was identified as “one gator length” between people in a line.
Finally, Fauci was forced to admit that social distancing had been pulled from his dupa. There had never been any medical data to support it. And that is exactly what we should expect from “subject matter experts.” If they work for the government, they’re wrong. Full stop. Maybe there are some exceptions, but none readily come to mind.
The Supreme Court has even been willing to give the Federal Reserve leeway, but recent history should again show that even those “experts” are spitting in the wind when they make decisions. In short, “expert agencies” is an oxymoron. Which brings us back to the Constitution.
Article I, §8 has a long list of powers delegated to Congress beginning with “to borrow money.” The jobs that most expert agencies do aren’t on the list, either. When they are, Congress has been too busy meddling in our lives to properly direct those agencies.
Unfortunately, a New Deal-era case called Humphrey’s Executor allowed Congress to create bodies headed by people that the President could hire but couldn’t fire. But fortunately for freedom, the Court has begun peeling that protection back via Seila Law and a number of procedural rulings on the Rocket Docket.
It is increasingly clear that all personnel decisions in the Executive Branch are ultimately exercised by the President. Which brings us to our current situation.
In that immortal line from Western movies, it’s time to head them off at the impasse. Dems are demanding “unity,” which means that we surrender to them and spend a trillion and a half dollars we don’t have to “keep the government open.”
But since government is the problem, why should we? In the words of the prophet Amos (3:3), “Can two walk together unless they are in agreement?”
We don’t agree with all your leftist manure. We can have unity, but only if, for the first time in a century, you decide to come our direction. But after the most recent White House conference on the subject, Dems are doubling down, and that’s after Russ Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, announced that the shutdown would be accompanied by job cuts.
The dirty little secret that Dems don’t want you to remember is that, historically, the poor, helpless, unrepresented federal employees who didn’t get paid during a shutdown have actually gotten a paid vacation since every act to re-open the government gave them back pay. But there’s a different secret that Dems are forgetting.
If the government isn’t funded, no job in any unfunded agency technically exists. And if the agencies and programs don’t exist, even for one day, every employee in those agencies and programs can be terminated without any civil service protection or benefits. Your job was cut, and you were collateral damage. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
Just think of how many homes in Northern Virginia would suddenly be for sale. What a way to turn Virginia Red! I’m sure that my astute reader will find details both pro and con, but ultimately, the absence of all those federal jobs would be a major benefit. But wait! There’s more!
We should expose the Dems for the hypocrites that they are at every chance, and the shutdown gives us a golden opportunity. Majority Leader Thune should bring the Continuing Resolution (which continues Biden’s last “budget”) to the floor for a vote.
Chucky Schumer will announce a filibuster, which requires seven Dem votes to break. Since the Dems have their feet in concrete, hand them the microphone and tell them to start talking. Every minute they blather is a minute that the public sees them for what they are. Get in front of the TV cameras and explain that they are opposing their own budget that they passed last year.
When they finally cave, bring single department “spaghetti appropriations” to the Senate, without the jobs the OMB already cut. Let them filibuster again. Explain on the Sunday shows that non-essential jobs are non-essential and don’t belong in the government.
Thanks To Democrats, Seniors’ Healthcare Costs Are Skyrocketing
By Jack Hellner
Oct. 01, 2025
As Milton Friedman always said, governments cause inflation. Thus, the government is behind the massive increase in college tuition. That affects a lot of people, but what affects even more is health care. Join me as I explain how the falsely named Affordable Care Act (ACA) (Obamacare) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have caused massive inflation in healthcare and health insurance costs since 2009.
In 2009, when the average cost of an individual health policy was under $100 and family coverage was under $400, democrats decided that health insurance cost too much, and too many didn’t have coverage.
Therefore, without any Republican support, they wrote a 1,000-page bill. They called the bill the “Affordable Care Act,” a misnomer intended to mislead the American people into supporting the bill. The mostly compliant media went along and chastised those who dared question the bill.
There were thousands of pages of additional regulations and many new taxes, along with the takeover of student loans, to pretend the bill was paid for. Democrats also falsely told the public that the bill would substantially lower premiums.
In fact, the bill took away freedom of choice and reduced competition. It got rid of lifetime and annual limits, so small and medium-sized companies couldn’t afford the risk. There was also no incentive for medical providers to control costs.
As prices soared, instead of limiting the scope of their promises about how the government would fix healthcare costs, the Democrats have instead worked to increase subsidies and increase the income levels of individuals and families who can get the subsidies. They needed more people to sign up to make it seem as if the ACA is popular and necessary. This just increased premiums even more and made insurance more unaffordable.
Something the Democrats intentionally left out of the bill that could have potentially reduced premiums and medical costs was any limits on punitive, not compensatory, damages in lawsuits. They left it out because Democrats receive significant sums of money from trial lawyers. Consider that Democrats put severe limits on profit margins for insurers, reducing the number of competitors, but they refuse to put any limits on lawsuits. The potential of unlimited lawsuit damages clearly raises prices.
After 15 years of the ACA or Obamacare, the average cost of individual coverage is over $600 per month, up over 500% and family coverage is up to over $2,000 per month, which is up over 400%. Meanwhile, overall inflation was 41.60% for this time period, even including the disastrous Biden years.
Yet, the media and other Democrats continue to claim that Obamacare has made healthcare more affordable, and any attempt by Republicans to change the laws means they want people to die.
Today, Democrats are threatening to shut down the government if the Republicans don’t keep the jacked-up subsidies that were supposedly an emergency caused by COVID.
Democrats didn’t stop with the ACA. In August 2022, Democrats passed the falsely named IRA, which was essentially a green slush fund. Hiding in the bill was a disaster for seniors.
Democrats pretended that seniors would save lots of money with adjustments to Medicare Part D. In fact, Biden bureaucrats implemented adjustments to the plan to hide the major price hikes until after the election. Part of what they delayed was a significant increase in prescription drug costs. They also managed to delay inevitable, and huge, increases in premiums:
President Biden promised the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) would lower drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Instead, seniors are facing the highest premiums in the programs’ history with the fewest number of available plans.
A new report by the Council for Affordable Health Coverage tracks how the IRA’s redesign of Part D is increasing premiums, reducing competition and choice, and raising out-of-pocket costs. The legislation was praised for its six percent cap on premiums, but it only applies to the “base premium,” not the actual premiums paid by most beneficiaries.
This year, Part D premiums increased an average of 21 percent. In October, when seniors choose their 2025 coverage, they are likely to see premium increases from 50 up to 100 percent or more. However, with those increases come fewer plan choices, higher out-of-pocket costs, more utilization review, and reduced Medicare Advantage benefits.
My wife and I have very low prescription costs. We could certainly afford to self-insure our three generic prescriptions per month, but we are not allowed to. We are forced to pay. We also have only a few options where to buy, so we buy from a major insurer.
Here is what our premiums on this have done since Democrats passed the IRA. We have to pay the following for each of us.
In 2023, the cost was $4.90 per month each. This was clearly a teaser rate.
In 2024, the cost went up to $9.90 per month, a 102% increase.
In 2025, the cost went up to $44.90 per month, a 354% increase.
On Friday, I got the notice for 2026 that the premium will be $94.90 per month, a 111% increase.
My guess is that this is the rate I will see from the other few insurance companies that will write these policies, which will supposedly save us money. So, in 25 months, our rate for both of us went up 1,837% and Democrats tout that they save seniors money. A small percentage of people will save money, but most of us will be screwed endlessly.
It is truly a shame that Democrats think that we shouldn’t have freedom of choice on so many things when their laws clearly decrease competition. Trump will be blamed for the 2025 and 2026 increases by the media and other Democrats, even though they are clearly the fault of Democrat laws.
Meanwhile, social security recipients will get a whopping 2.7% increase. The average recipient will barely get enough to cover this increase, let alone anything else.
We were told in 2009 that the ACA would also increase the quality and length of life. However, one of the advisors on the ACA was Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel. He believes that once you hit age 75, you have essentially lived long enough. Is he a person we should trust to help design our health system?
Sadly, once a government subsidy program starts, it is hard to stop because someone will always be hurt. The program’s actual results and the effect on the budget deficit and the rest of us don’t matter.
The media obviously know that health premiums and costs have skyrocketed since the ACA passed, yet they continue to claim that Obamacare has made healthcare more affordable. They also argue (as they are during this budget battle) that any Republican attempt to change the laws means they want people to die.
Why do people posing as journalists think they deserve to get a paycheck if all they do is regurgitate Democrat talking points?
Trump’s Immigration Reset: H-1B and Gold Card Orders Put America First
By Brian C. Joondeph
Oct. 01, 2025
President Donald Trump’s two recent executive orders, one imposing a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visas and the other launching the “Gold Card” fast-track residency program, represent the most significant immigration reforms in decades.
Image by ChatGPT
They flip the incentive structure that has for years favored multinational corporations and global outsourcing firms over American workers, while also tackling long-ignored national security risks.
As a policy, open borders is one area where Democrats and many Republicans agree. Democrats want new voters, while the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street Journal Republicans want cheap labor. President George W. Bush, backed by Senator John McCain, in 2007, pushed for “comprehensive immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty, for millions of illegal aliens, which fortunately failed a US Senate vote.
Enter President Trump, the only president in my lifetime who has recognized that America has a sovereign border. Even President Reagan failed to repair our dysfunctional immigration system. He signed an amnesty bill into law, which NPR heralded as “a Reagan legacy,” and it unsurprisingly turned California from a red to a blue state. No wonder NPR loved it.
The H-1B program was initially created to help U.S. companies fill rare, high-skilled roles when American expertise was unavailable.
However, in practice, it has become a pathway for cheap foreign labor. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in 2022, the top 30 H-1B employers brought in 34,000 new visa workers even as they laid off at least 85,000 Americans. From MAGA to making the rest of the world great again.
The proportion of IT workers on H-1Bs has risen from 32% in 2003 to over 65% today, even as unemployment among recent computer science graduates remains above six percent, according to the White House.
Trump’s order significantly alters the landscape.
Companies now face a $100,000 annual fee per H-1B visa, rather than just a one-time filing fee, according to the White House. This ongoing expense is meant to give employers pause. Is the skill truly so scarce that it justifies paying $100,000 annually to Washington, D.C., in addition to salary and benefits? If so, that’s acceptable, but the era of flooding payrolls with lower-cost foreign contractors has ended.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick clarified, “The whole idea is no more with these big tech companies or other large corporations training foreign workers. They have to pay the government $100,000, and then they have to pay the employee.”
To emphasize, this is an annual fee, not a one-time payment. The fee expires after one year unless renewed.
Perhaps the most damaging effect of the H-1B system has been on young Americans considering careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Why spend years earning a STEM degree, at great personal expense, when companies like Amazon and Microsoft prefer cheaper contractors from abroad? The White House itself warned that the H-1B program is creating “disincentives for future American workers to choose STEM careers.”
That chilling effect has serious consequences. When American graduates see their job opportunities cut by a surge of imported labor, many choose to leave critical fields altogether. In the long run, this not only harms wages but also weakens the nation’s innovation pipeline. Trump’s order restores fair competition and keeps STEM careers open for U.S. students.
It’s not literal slavery, but it amounts to modern-day indentured servitude with workers tied to one employer, unable to leave without risking deportation.
The debate extends beyond just economics. Allowing tens of thousands of foreign nationals, many from strategic competitors like China, to work in sensitive sectors such as semiconductors, defense, and telecommunications poses serious national security risks. Intellectual property theft, espionage, and divided loyalties are real threats, not just theories. They have been repeatedly documented by U.S. intelligence agencies.
By tightening the H-1B pipeline, Trump’s executive action reduces this exposure. America cannot afford to have its cutting-edge military and technology sectors mainly staffed by non-citizens. Conservatives have long argued that border security and economic security are connected. Trump’s order makes clear that high-skill visas are no exception.
Ross Perot, when running for president in 1992, famously warned, “You’re going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs going south” due to American jobs leaving the country over NAFTA.
Back then, the threat was factories moving overseas.
Today, the sound is different, but the effect is the same. American workers are being replaced, this time by imported labor under H-1B. Trump’s reforms respond to Perot’s warning a generation later by using executive authority to keep jobs with American citizens.
If the H-1B order closes the cheap-labor loophole, the Gold Card program opens a new, carefully targeted door.
For a $1 million gift to the U.S. government, wealthy individuals can obtain a green card through expedited review. Corporations can sponsor key employees for $2 million, while a proposed Platinum Card at $5 million could someday provide a path to citizenship. Applicants still must pass background checks and meet immigration law requirements. The only difference is their position in line, which they leap to the front.
This approach addresses two issues simultaneously. First, it monetizes efficiency by having applicants pay for expedited processing instead of taxpayers funding an overcrowded immigration system. Second, it makes sure that those who skip ahead are likely to be job creators and investors, not liabilities. As CBS News reported, Trump explained: “We’re going to have great people coming in, and they’re going to be paying.”
Such programs are common. Portugal offers a Golden Visa program that requires a five-year investment in monetary assets for residency, which is less direct and efficient compared to Trump’s proposal.
For conservatives cautious about unrestricted immigration, this presents a strong bargain: America gains capital instead of bearing costs.
Unsurprisingly, Big Tech is unhappy. Venture capitalists argue that the $100,000 H-1B fee could hurt America’s competitiveness, but this overlooks how the current system has suppressed domestic innovation by discouraging Americans from pursuing STEM careers. Genuine innovation thrives when American students and workers believe they can compete fairly.
Foreign governments have also expressed concern, especially India, which depends heavily on exporting workers to the U.S.
However, “mutual benefits” cannot mean ongoing disadvantages for American workers. If Indian talent is truly essential, companies can pay higher fees or opt for the Gold Card route.
These executive orders achieve what years of congressional debate failed to do -- they restore fairness and balance. They send a clear message that American jobs and national security come first, while still welcoming genuine talent and investment. This is true MAGA.
Critics might question the legality of Trump’s actions, and courts could intervene. Some far-left judges are probably already preparing their restraining orders and injunctions. But Trump is not changing immigration law itself, only the process, which is controlled by the executive branch.
The political message is clear. Under this administration, immigration policy is no longer aimed at boosting corporate profits or appeasing foreign governments. Instead, it is focused on defending the American worker, supporting the American student, and securing America’s future.
Contrast this with the Biden administration, which has allowed record levels of illegal border crossings. Trump has sealed the border and is now fixing a broken immigration system.
President Trump’s dual actions on immigration, the H-1B overhaul and the Gold Card launch, are bold, controversial, and exactly what conservatives have demanded for years.
By making H-1Bs prohibitively expensive each year, he fights wage suppression, encourages Americans to pursue STEM fields, and addresses national security concerns. Simultaneously, the Gold Card provides a practical, revenue-generating pathway for the world’s most talented entrepreneurs and investors to come to America legally.
This is what immigration policy should be -- tough, fair, and unapologetically MAGA pro-American.
Schumer’s Shutdown Another ‘Desperate’ Attempt To Fend Off Upstart Far Left, Analysts Say
by Daily Caller News Foundation
October 1, 2025
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer deliberately plunged the country into a government shutdown in an effort to improve his standing with his party’s far-left flank and score political points against Republicans amid Democrats’ faltering poll numbers, analysts and GOP lawmakers told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Schumer led Democrats in blocking a GOP spending bill to fund the government on Tuesday, triggering a funding lapse Wednesday at 12:01 a.m. The lead Democrats’ decision to embrace a politically risky shutdown comes as his favorability rating is underwater with Democratic voters and there is mounting speculation whether he will face primary or leadership challenges in the future.
“I don’t think I’ve seen a shutdown that’s more purely political,” Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy told reporters outside the Senate chamber on Tuesday. “I think the way Senator Schumer approached this is: ‘Let me see, if I leave the government open — I did that once — and I got knocked into a new zip code by the socialist wing of my party. I know if I do it again, I’m going to get knocked into a new zip code twice.”
“‘On the other hand, I can shut it down. I may get knocked into a new zip code, but I may win.’ So it’s a certainty and a maybe — and I think that’s his political calculus,” Kennedy added.
WATCH:
When asked about whether Schumer might be risking an indefinite government shutdown in an attempt to appease his far-left critics, such as Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, GOP strategist Mike McKenna replied “absolutely.”
“Why else would they be so anxious to pick a fight that they know they can’t win?” McKenna said. “The best possible outcome for the [Democrats] is a draw.”
“Eventually, Sen. Schumer is going to have to break with his own crazies. Obviously, he has decided now is not that moment,” McKenna continued.
Senate Republicans echoed a similar sentiment on Tuesday, arguing that it was not Schumer but the party’s left-wing flank demanding a shutdown to fight Trump.
“I expect to see a shutdown because Schumer’s left-wing demands it,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, the second-ranking Senate Republican, told the DCNF Tuesday. “He’s bowing down, as he has been after this, to Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren and to Bernie Sanders.”
A Pew Research Center survey released Tuesday found that Schumer had the highest unfavorable ratings among congressional leaders. Schumer also has a net favorability rating of -4 percentage points with just 35% of Americans who characterize themselves as “lean Dem” or “Dem” approving of the minority leader, according to the pollster.
Schumer’s lackluster poll numbers has fueled talk of Ocasio-Cortez mounting a primary challenge against the lead Democrat when he is up for reelection in 2028. Ocasio-Cortez, 35, is positioning herself to make a run for the seat or for president, Axios first reported.
A growing number of Democratic candidates running for Senate have also declined to back Schumer for his leadership role. Their desire to create distance with Schumer is likely due to his unpopularity with the party’s base voters.
Though Schumer has voiced optimism that Republicans will shoulder the blame for a shutdown, a prolonged funding lapse carries risks that further weaken his standing in his party.
Democrats have not articulated how they plan to end a shutdown if GOP leaders and Trump continue balking at their demands. Moreover, divisions within the Senate Democratic Caucus came into focus late Tuesday evening, when several Democrats voted with Republicans to avert a shutdown.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune needs to convince just five additional Senate Democrats to cross party lines and fund the government.
James P. Pinkerton, alumnus of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush White House domestic policy offices, told the DCNF that Schumer has likely miscalculated his leverage going into the shutdown fight — and he is likely to fold with none of his demands met in the end.
“I’ve been watching, and sometimes participating in, government shutdowns since my time in the Reagan Administration,” Pinkerton said. “Shutdowns result when one side is driven by an ideological belief not suited to the actual power equation.”
“As a result, that side ‘misprices’ its leverage and deploys its assets mistakenly,” Pinkerton continued. “The result: High hopes, followed by stunned shock, followed by deep disillusion. In this instance, the scenario describes the Democrats. Outrage is not a strategy. [Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director] Russ Vought wants this.”
Schumer struggled to explain the results of a survey from The New York Times published Tuesday which found that more than six in ten Americans do not want Democrats to shut down if all of their policy “demands are not met.”
“I don’t always believe The New York Times,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “You can be sure of that.”
The politics of a shutdown could grow more unfavorable to Schumer over time with Republicans expected to highlight warnings from members of his own party warning about the disastrous effects of a prolonged funding lapse.
“They are desperate to manufacture any strategy to try to weaken Congressional Republicans,” Tom Basile, a Daily Caller contributor and host of Newsmax’s “America Right Now,” told the DCNF. “The left is also betting on the media and social algorithms to favor their blame game and attacks on both Trump and the GOP.”
Basile also cautioned that Schumer is making a big mistake with potentially long-term consequences by focusing all of his attention on catering to the party’s base rather than working to expand the Democrats’ appeal among a wider bloc of voters.
Just 30% of voters have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, according to a recent Quinnipiac University survey. The figure is the lowest favorability rating for the party since the pollster began asking the question in 2008.
“Democrats’ problem isn’t their base, but the fact that their positions are widely unpopular with the broader electorate,” Basile reflected. “They ran a base election in 2024 and lost badly. Their challenge is that it’s hard to broaden appeal when you’re tirelessly attacking ICE, defending illegal immigration, and opposing fighting crime in the inner cities.”
Andi Shae Napier, Caden Olson and Harold Hutchison contributed to this report.
EXCLUSIVE: Democrats Have No Answer For Why They Voted To Shut Government Down
by Daily Caller News Foundation
October 1, 2025 at 10:21 am
Democratic members of Congress scurried away from questions by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) about why they voted to shut the government down.
Democratic Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine were the only members of their caucus to vote in favor of the stopgap funding bill, which would have kept the government open through Nov. 21. In footage exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, Democratic members of the caucus who voted to shut down the government did not explain their vote.
“Congressman, why did you vote to shut down the government?” a person with the NRCC asked.
“I didn’t,” Virginia Rep. Suhas Subramanyam said.
The roll call vote shows that Subramanyam did, in fact, vote to shut down the government.
WATCH:
Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost, Morgan McGarvey of Kentucky and several others refused to give a response.
Rep. Glenn Ivey of Maryland stated that he voted against the stopgap bill because “it’s important to have healthcare.” Ohio Rep. Greg Landsman said that he wants to keep the government open, even though the roll call shows that he voted to shut it down.
Democrats demanded that the legislation extend enhanced tax credits from the Affordable Care Act, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. The lack of the extension led to their opposition against keeping the government open.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a joint statement to blame Republicans and President Donald Trump for the shutdown.
“After months of making life harder and more expensive, Donald Trump and Republicans have now shut down the federal government because they do not want to protect the healthcare of the American people … Over the last few days, President Trump’s behavior has become more erratic and unhinged. Instead of negotiating a bipartisan agreement in good faith, he is obsessively posting crazed deepfake videos. The country is in desperate need of an intervention to get out of another Trump shutdown,” the statement states.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that Democrats need to “come to their senses” and work with Republicans to pass the funding bill.
A New York Times/Siena University poll found that 65% of Americans oppose Democrats shutting down the government.
Watch: Mike Johnson Blasts Democrats’ Government Shutdown Hypocrisy with Their Own Words
By Olivia Rondeau
Sep. 30, 2025
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) put the Democrats on blast with their own words, showing their hypocrisy as they protested against previous government shutdowns while refusing to put a stop to the looming shutdown that will occur at midnight Tuesday if they do not compromise with Republicans.
Johnson has the following video playing on loop on a television outside his office in the U.S. Capitol, pointing out the blatant contradictions of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and more:
Under President Biden, Democrats insisted we must keep the government open.
Now under President Trump they’re saying the opposite.
Last week every single House Democrat but one voted to SHUT DOWN the government.
“It is not normal to shut down the government when we don’t get what we want,” Ocasio-Cortez said on the House floor in 2019.
Almost exactly one year ago, Schumer apparently cared about how the government shutdown that he is currently hell-bent on forcing would impact average Americans.
“If the government shuts down, it will be average Americans who suffer most. A government shutdown means seniors who rely on Social Security could be thrown into chaos,” the minority leader said in a September 2024 speech criticizing “hard-right Republicans” and “MAGA radicals.”
Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) were also featured in Johnson’s video, complaining of how a shutdown would harm working-class Americans and public servants.
“Families will be hurt. Farmers will be hurt,” Jeffries said in December 2024.
“It’s the service members who will work without a paycheck. It’s the firefighters who will be furloughed,” Clark said in September 2023.
In a video posted to her social media followers last year, Pressley said “This shutdown — you know who’s going to feel the pain? You know who it hurts? You. Every day people, and the most vulnerable. Seniors, veterans, working families, hungry kids, y’all.”
Despite the Democrats’ previous grandstanding, they have refused to work with Republicans to keep the government from shutting down on October 1, Breitbart News has reported.
President Donald Trump called them out during a Tuesday Oval Office press conference, saying, “They are shutting it down. We’re not shutting it down. We don’t want it to shut down because we have the greatest period of time ever. I tell you we have $17 trillion being invested, so the last person that wants it shut down is us.”
Multiple Republicans have stated that Schumer will be blamed for the impending shutdown if it goes through.
Maxine Waters on Healthcare for Illegals: ‘Healthcare for Everybody’
By Paul Bois 30 Sep 2025
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) admitted on Tuesday that Democrats are “demanding healthcare for everybody” in their fight against the continuing resolution (CR) bill.
“Are Democrats demanding healthcare for illegal aliens?” a reporter asked Waters on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
“Democrats are demanding healthcare for everybody,” Waters responded.
Maxine Waters admits Democrats are going to shutdown the government to try to secure healthcare for illegal immigrants.
Reporter: "Are Democrats demanding healthcare for illegal aliens?"
As Breitbart News reported this week, Republicans have repeatedly “maintained that the continuing resolution (CR) they are advocating for has no new programs in it and is therefore a clean measure,” with Democrats turning the fight into a “political message against Republicans,” according to Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).
“They’re throwing out a whole host of other things they want to, quote, continue, because they want to set up a political message against Republicans,” he said during an appearance on Breitbart News Daily.
“Again, Republicans’ message is pretty simple: Let’s keep government funding the same way Democrats did, I think, 13 times during the Biden presidency, to be able to continue to move things forward on a continuing resolution,” Roy added.
On Tuesday, 44 Senate Democrats voted to block a House-passed “spending plan just hours before a long-anticipated funding deadline, sending the federal government careening toward a full shutdown for the first time since 2013,” Breitbart News reported.
“The gambit is sure to please, if only temporarily, the radical Democrat base clamoring for further resistance to President Donald Trump’s government,” it added. “But with little incentive for Republicans to make concessions to Democrats, no apparent path for Democrats to exit the shutdown exists. And the plan is widely predicted to backfire, causing long-term damage to Democrats.”
Pelosi Drops F-Bomb in Shutdown Fight as Dems Demand Healthcare for Illegals
By Kyle Becker
Oct. 01, 2025
With just days left before a possible government shutdown, Democrats escalated their rhetoric over healthcare funding, with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unleashing a profanity-laced tirade during an NBC interview.
Pelosi, appearing on NBC News Monday, defended her party’s stance that any stopgap funding bill must include provisions to protect Affordable Care Act subsidies and reverse cuts to Medicaid.
Asked if she believed talks at the White House would yield results, Pelosi responded by blasting Republican proposals as unserious.
“What we’re talking about is meeting the health care needs of the American people, little babies, moms with breast cancer, dads with a stroke, and all of that,” Pelosi said.
“The President has said, I hear what they’re saying. It’s all unserious and ridiculous. In fact, I’ve listened to their sh*t, and I tell them to go f** themselves,” she added.
Pelosi acknowledged the language was unusual for her, adding, “I can’t believe I use that word. My kids will be shocked. My grandchildren will be further shocked. I’m just quoting the President of the United States.”
WATCH:
Her comments came as congressional leaders scrambled to avert a shutdown at midnight on September 30.
While the Republican-controlled House passed a continuing resolution last week to keep the government open through late November, the Senate has not advanced it, with Democrats refusing to support a “clean” bill that excludes healthcare provisions.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reinforced the stance Thursday, telling reporters, “We will not support a partisan spending agreement that continues to rip away health care from the American people, period, full stop.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Jeffries. “What the Republicans are proposing is not good enough for the American people and not good enough to get our votes,” he said. “The Republicans have to meet us in a true bipartisan negotiation to satisfy the American people’s needs on health care.”
At issue are two priorities Democrats say must be addressed before they can support funding the government: an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits that expire at the end of the year and a reversal of cuts to Medicaid enacted as part of the GOP’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” earlier this summer.
Those tax credits, first expanded under President Joe Biden in 2022, capped premiums and widened eligibility for ACA coverage.
Republicans, however, are pushing for a short-term bill with no policy riders, arguing that healthcare should be addressed separately. Senate Majority Leader John Thune suggested Democrats are using the shutdown deadline to force political concessions.
“I think their base is clamoring for that. They want a fight with the Trump administration,” Thune told Punchbowl News. “But they don’t have a good reason to do it. And I don’t intend to give them a good reason.”
President Donald Trump, for his part, endorsed a short-term extension last week and suggested Republicans should move forward without consulting Democrats.
“We have to get Republican votes. That’s it. If we do, we have the majority,” Trump said. He added that Democrats would not support a funding bill “even if you gave them every dream.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated he wants to avoid a shutdown but acknowledged Democratic cooperation will be needed in the Senate. He has not revealed whether Republican leaders are prepared to attach healthcare measures to the stopgap bill.
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole has been working to assemble a package of three spending bills alongside the continuing resolution. “We wouldn’t do a CR that both sides didn’t agree to. I mean, we’re not trying to jam the Democrats on the CR,” Cole said. “We’re trying to work with them.”
Still, he warned against brinkmanship.
“I think shutting down the government in a temper tantrum is not going to be helpful to the country. I don’t think it’s going to be good for them, either, but that’s up to them.”
Congress faces a tight calendar: with Rosh Hashanah recess scheduled, lawmakers are not due back until September 29, leaving just two days to resolve differences. Leadership has hinted that additional legislative days may be added to beat the deadline.
Diễn Đàn Người Việt Hải Ngoại. Tự do ngôn luận, an toàn và uy tín. Vì một tương lai tươi đẹp cho các thế hệ Việt Nam hãy ghé thăm chúng tôi, hãy tâm sự với chúng tôi mỗi ngày, mỗi giờ và mỗi giây phút có thể. VietBF.Com Xin cám ơn các bạn, chúc tất cả các bạn vui vẻ và gặp nhiều may mắn.
Welcome to Vietnamese American Community, Vietnamese European, Canadian, Australian Forum, Vietnamese Overseas Forum. Freedom of speech, safety and prestige. For a beautiful future for Vietnamese generations, please visit us, talk to us every day, every hour and every moment possible. VietBF.Com Thank you all and good luck.
