President Trump’s divisive choice to send military forces to Los Angeles has sparked a strong and united reaction from every Democratic senator, who are all calling for the immediate removal of all troops from the city. This unusual military move, meant to stop protests against the President’s large-scale deportation plan, has drawn heavy criticism from Democrats, who see it as a major overstep of presidential authority and a violation of constitutional values.

The increase in military presence in Los Angeles started when President Trump took control of California’s National Guard without the state’s approval and then sent over 700 Marines to the area. These troops were brought in during widespread demonstrations across the nation, especially in Los Angeles, where people were protesting the istration’s mass deportation efforts. The istration claimed the deployment was meant to stop these protests, but Democrats strongly disagree, arguing that civilian law enforcement and respect for the Constitution require a different response.

As found by Axios, California Senator Alex Padilla is leading the opposition to the president’s military action. He organized a letter, signed by all 46 other Senate Democrats, urging President Trump to “immediately withdraw all military personnel that have been deployed to Los Angeles in recent days.” The letter also asked the President to “stop any further threats of sending National Guard or other active duty military personnel into American cities unless the Governor requests it.”

Trump faces backlash from every senate democrat

The protests against the istration’s deportation program have spread far beyond Los Angeles, reaching many other cities across the country. President Trump has warned that he might send troops to other areas with similar unrest, raising fears among Democrats that this could become a pattern of federal overreach. This growing worry has brought Democrats together, even though they have often been split on how to oppose the Trump istration’s policies.

The military deployment in Los Angeles and the wider debate over immigration enforcement have become key issues, uniting Democrats around a shared cause.

A key moment that deepened Democratic anger was an incident involving Senator Padilla and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Senator Padilla was forcibly taken away and handcuffed during a press conference held by Secretary Noem, an event that led to widespread outrage from Democrats. The “rough treatment of a sitting U.S. senator” was almost universally criticized by the party, making the controversy even worse. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has since called for an investigation into the incident, and many Democrats have demanded Secretary Noem’s resignation.

The tense confrontation between Israel and Iran continues to escalate as a series of aggressive military actions pushed the region closer to a larger conflict. Per CBS, Trump said it “would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told…” and now that’s come to . Missiles flew, and targeted attacks caused widespread destruction.

Iran quickly retaliated against Israel’s initial attack. On Friday morning, Iran sent over 100 drones toward Israel, most of which were shot down by Israel’s air defenses. Later that day and into Saturday, Iran fired multiple rounds of ballistic missiles. The first wave included about 100 missiles launched in two groups. While Israel’s Iron Dome defense system stopped most of them, a few got through, damaging buildings and causing injuries.

As reported by CBS, a second wave of dozens more missiles followed, with some again slipping past defenses, leading to reports of explosions in different parts of the country and requiring search and rescue teams to respond. Videos and photos from places like Tel Aviv showed buildings hit by missiles, some on fire.

Iran and Israel are trading missile attacks

The sharp escalation began early on Friday, when Israel launched a major military operation called “Operation Rising Lion.” This large-scale attack involved more than 200 Israeli fighter jets firing over 330 different weapons at more than 100 targets across Iran. According to Israeli military officials, the main goals of these strikes were Iran’s nuclear facilities, scientists working on nuclear programs, and top military leaders.

Specific targets included a nuclear site in the Isfahan area, where a facility for making metallic uranium and equipment for processing enriched uranium were destroyed. This was along with labs and other ing structures.

The underground section of the Natanz uranium enrichment site was also hit, damaging its multi-level enrichment hall, centrifuges, electrical systems, and other key infrastructure. Additionally, Israeli military reports confirmed that several high-ranking Iranian security officials, including the Chief of Staff, the Commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and the Head of the Emergency Command, were killed in the strikes. Israel stated that the purpose of the operation was to stop what it claimed was an Iranian plan to destroy Israel, which included developing nuclear weapons, expanding missile stockpiles, and ing proxy groups against Israel.

The United States confirmed that it helped Israel intercept Iranian missiles. During the attacks, U.S. troops at two bases in the Middle East, Union III in Baghdad, Iraq, and Al-Tanf Garrison in Syria, were ordered to take cover in bunkers for about an hour. However, the U.S. made clear that it was not involved in Israel’s initial strikes on Iran. Before the Israeli operation, the U.S. State Department had informed several allied governments in the region, stressing that this was not a U.S. operation, did not involve U.S. military assets, and that the U.S. preferred diplomacy over military action.

At the same time, the U.S. Embassy in Israel told American personnel to stay indoors, and non-essential U.S. staff had been ordered to leave Iraq days earlier, while military family were allowed to voluntarily leave the Middle East. The human and material cost of the conflict was high. In Israel, reports said 21 people were injured, two seriously, and many buildings and vehicles were damaged in areas like Ramat Gan in Tel Aviv. In Iran, officials reported 78 dead and over 320 wounded from the Israeli strikes.

Federal authorities are now charging immigrants who do not provide fingerprints, using an old law from the 1940s that had not been enforced for seventy-five years. The Alien Registration Act requires non-citizens to with the federal government, but it has been ignored for decades. The Trump istration is pushing the enforcement to bring back a World War II-era law requiring almost all U.S. non-citizens to and give their fingerprints to the government.

As found by Politico, law enforcement in several states, including Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Texas, and Washington, D.C., has started charging people for intentionally failing to under the Alien Registration Act. This misdemeanor crime is punishable by up to six months in jail or a fine of $1,000. Many of those charged were already in custody and going through deportation proceedings when these new charges were added.

The registration part of this 1940 law was originally ed during a time when many Americans were worried about immigrants’ loyalty to the U.S. It had not been used for seventy-five years but was still technically in effect. The Trump istration’s decision to enforce this law puts undocumented immigrants in a tough position. If they choose to , they must give the federal government detailed information that could be used against them, including how they entered the country. On the other hand, if they refuse to on purpose, they could face criminal charges, arrest, prosecution, and the risk of deportation.

Outdated laws are being used against immigrants

One possible reason for bringing back the registration rule is the expectation that people will , effectively turning themselves in by itting they entered the country illegally. However, the Trump istration has a bigger goal. It claims that another purpose of this registration system is to push undocumented immigrants toward a third option: leaving the country voluntarily. The Department of Homeland Security calls this “mass self-deportation.”

These efforts, along with the istration’s use of another old law about enemy aliens and a more aggressive approach to immigration raids, are part of a larger campaign promise to create the biggest deportation program in U.S. history. In a statement from February, the department said this long-ignored law would now be enforced. The department described “mass self-deportation” as a safer option for both non-citizens and law enforcement, and it also claimed this would save money for U.S. taxpayers.

The Alien Registration Act ed in 1940 due to fears about immigrant loyalties, includes another section that makes it a crime to advocate overthrowing the government. This part of the law was used for about twenty years to prosecute people accused of ing fascism or communism. The registration part, however, was mostly unused and had not been enforced for seventy-five years. It applies to non-citizens who have been in the U.S. for thirty days or more, regardless of their legal status.

Some legal immigrants have already met this requirement. For example, immigrants who have applied for permanent residency are considered ed by the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, some undocumented residents are already seen as ed, such as those granted “parole,” a form of protection from deportation for humanitarian reasons. Still, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that up to 3.2 million immigrants are currently uned and could be affected by this new enforcement.

In the months since Donald Trump took up the White House as the president of America for a second term, there has been nothing but chaos. Some he backed, and some he created from ground zero – the common factor being the civilians paying the price. The role the POTUS played in Israel’s latest attack on Iran is shaping up to be a deadly new example of the very hell.

Soon after the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wasted no time in distancing America from it all. He released a statement clarifying that America was not involved in the strikes and that their only “priority is protecting American forces in the region.”

“Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the istration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,” he added.

But a new report, sharing revelations by several anonymous Israeli officials, paints a very different and scandalous picture. Axios, based on its sources, has alleged that “Trump and his aides were only pretending to oppose an Israeli attack in public — and didn’t express opposition in private.”

Reportedly, Trump’s plan was to blindside Iran by convincing them that they would not be attacked. This was to ensure that Iranians on Israel’s target list don’t move to new locations. The sources have claimed that while he made calls for diplomacy, he was actually coordinating with Israel and giving his “green light” to the attack.

If true, will America face any consequences?

On paper, Trump will not have to defend or say anything. But as highlighted by ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, America is forgetting that it is home to Iran’s “terror cells.’

In a chat with Fox News, Pompeo reflected on Israel’s attack on Iran and the presence of Trump throughout the deadly chapter.

“It’s not just the missiles or drones, they’ll fly to Israel, but the Iranian IRGC, the very leadership the Israelis destroyed last night, has been working in nearly every country around the world, including the United States of America, to plant little terror cells all across the world. Hezbollah was doing the same.”

Though he made his of the attack clear, he also warned that these terror cells could be used to seek revenge from America. Oh, and how is Trump planning on dealing with any consequences of this attack that may or may not affect America? Go back and forth on what he thinks and offer empty words, of course.

Bernie Sanders has always been the politician of note when it comes to calling out things that people in his position usually have too many quid pro quo relationships to blurt out. Recently, Sanders took stock of Trump’s tenure so far and asked why no one in the Republican Party will just come out and call his authoritarian rule for what it is.

The recent federalization of the National Guard in California has slowly become Trump’s final straw in a lot of people’s psyche. The news cycle moves so fast these days, and with that comes the inability to properly take everything in perspective. Bernie Sanders, however—always one to go against the grain — took to X to talk about how Trump has been suing the media, investigating universities that don’t do his bidding, and even recently flirted with the idea of arresting the democratically elected governor of California.

Trump usurps the power of Congress, threatens judges who rule against him, sues the media, extorts law firms that oppose him & “investigates” universities he dislikes.

Now he wants to arrest the governor of CA.

Will a SINGLE Republican in Congress oppose his authoritarianism?

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) June 11, 2025

Gavin Newsom’s relationship with Trump has fractured beyond repair at this point, and the Trump istration is now even publicly declaring that they want to “liberate” LA. But as long-time proponents of state responsibility and smaller government, questions have slowly started to arise around the Republican silence on this entire matter.

Much like the legal maneuvering Trump used in his attempt to suspend habeas corpus, he exploited a loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act — whose main role is to prevent federal troops from being used in domestic law enforcement. The act states that the federal government may intervene in the case of an attempted insurrection, which would explain the framing the Trump istration keeps using when it talks about the LA protest situation.

There’s a broader trend suggesting this is not the first time the world has seen this kind of behavior from an authoritarian leader. History is filled with figures who ramp up nationwide security features and personnel to quell off any instances of criticism. And that’s clearly what Bernie Sanders was alluding to. That this is happening as Trump plans a military parade for his birthday — and is threatening any protesters who have a problem with it — suggests a really grim outlook for the near future.

In the comments, opinions on Sen. Sanders were quite split. One pointed out that even Elon Musk had to walk back his comments. Some didn’t even bother defending Trump’s actions and instead accused Democrats of also doing this sort of thing for years.

Elon Musk tried, didn't last long. Doubt any Republican in ckngress has the courage for this.

— Chris Summer (@TVision36898) June 11, 2025

Sounds like the exact same things Democrats have been doing to conservatives for years and years!!

— Thomas O'Connor '62 baby, #GodBlessAmerica (@TheyCallMeTomO1) June 11, 2025

Things are moving fast, and regardless of personal political opinions, various groups have moved to court to challenge Trump’s decisions, believing many of them lean on the illegal side. And as the courts hand out rulings as quickly as they possibly can, it seems Californians are expressing their disapproval of the deployment, with 63% of people in the state reportedly against it in a particular poll.

The US has grown extremely polarized. And Trump—whether he means to or not—has become a human stress test of the institutional checks and balances. With every move, he exerts more pressure on just how much the executive can bend laws to its will. Sen. Sanders is ultimately right: this is more than just another two-party political duel. A lot more is on the line.

If the last few months have shown us anything it’s that Donald Trump is a power hungry tyrant hell bent on getting his grubby fingers on as much power as he can. The dictator comparisons have been coming from all sides of the political board but Democratic Rep Yassamin Ansari was the only one thoughtful enough to provide us with a helpful list of every reason Trump is a dictator.

In a video shared to her Instagram the Democratic representative for Arizona’s 3rd congressional district called out Scott Perry for mocking the idea of Trump being a dictator. It seems many Republicans are still in denial. Anyways, Ansari made a pretty compelling case as to why we should be referring to the president as a dictator. 

A long list of reasons to be wary of Donald Trump

Considering he only took office at the start of this year Trump has already done plenty of things that could be considered dictator-y. Literally the day he was sworn in he pardoned the violent January 6th insurrectionists. pardoning literal criminals just because they you doesn’t exactly scream “democracy.”

Ansari’s been keeping track of his actions, every unconstitutional move the president has made so far has been listed and it all comes together to back up her dictator claims. She mentions his defiance of Supreme Court orders, his methodical dismantling of multiple federal agencies, his deportation of people to foreign prisons without due process. Honestly the list is too long to go into full detail here, but when you have the benefit of hindsight it’s surprising just how much Trump is behaving like a tyrant.

Obviously we can’t forget his military parade for his birthday. Ansari asks “is this North Korea?” It almost seems like Trump expects U.S. citizens to worship him. 

Is the president intentionally causing chaos?

Ansari also touches on Trump’s use of military force “without the consent of local authorities or the state’s governor.” Typically a governor would have to consent to the National Guard being deployed in their state but the president has undermined California governor Gavin Newsom and sent them in to quell the protests in L.A. anyway.

The whole ordeal has caused chaos and Ansari compares it to a “dystopian, horrific episode of Black Mirror.” As the president continues to drag the U.S. into fascism while we all just stand by and watch. Comments responding to Ansari’s speech on Instagram agreed with her, one person wrote, “Yep…sounds like we officially live in the FORMER United States of America.” Others called for impeachment.

It seems more people are finally opening their eyes and realizing the threat Trump poses to democracy. The events of the last week have only served to show his true nature. We don’t need to wait for the next season of Black Mirror, we’re living it.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has dealt a major setback to President Donald Trump’s executive order that tried to claim sweeping federal control over elections and voter registration. The ruling, made on June 13, 2025, marks a clear legal defeat for the istration’s disputed efforts to push through election policy changes without approval from Congress. The judge’s decision to block the order temporarily highlights key constitutional principles about the division of power and who has the authority to manage election rules.

As found by CBS News, Judge Casper’s 44-page ruling carefully explained the constitutional and legal reasons for her decision. She noted that while U.S. citizenship is undeniably required to vote in federal elections, and federal voter registration forms already include a statement confirming citizenship, the key question was whether the President had the power to demand official documents as proof.

Her ruling emphasized that Congress holds the authority to set election rules, and current federal law does not require such documentation. Additionally, the ruling pointed out that the Election Assistance Commission, which was created by law, must follow a formal process (including public notice and input, as well as consulting with states) before making any changes to federal voter registration forms. The executive order appeared to skip this process entirely.

Trump’s attempt to interfere with voting rights blocked

The original executive order, signed by President Trump in March, aimed to introduce new rules requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections. Beyond this main change, the order also touched on other parts of election istration, including altering mail-in ballot deadlines and setting voting equipment rules. These proposed “reforms” raised immediate concerns among many groups, with reports warning that the broad changes and the President’s apparent overreach could risk stripping millions of Americans of their voting rights.

The istration’s move to enforce these changes through executive action was widely expected to face legal opposition. This prediction came true when attorneys general from 19 states filed a lawsuit in April to stop major parts of the order. This is because dictators are known to do stuff like this. Even Stephen Colbert joked Trump was “bringing a taste of dictatorship back home.”

The Democratic Party and several voting rights organizations also launched separate legal challenges, leading to earlier court orders blocking parts of the Republican President’s directive. The latest ruling by U.S. District Judge Denise Casper follows the same path as these earlier cases, further strengthening the judiciary’s rejection of the executive order’s provisions.

The central issue in the legal battle was whether the President had the authority to make changes to federal elections. The U.S. Constitution clearly gives states the power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of elections. While it allows Congress to step in and override state laws, it does not give the President any such power. Election experts had repeatedly pointed out that President Trump was trying to claim authority he did not have, making legal challenges against the order almost inevitable.

This executive order was linked to an earlier failed attempt by congressional Republicans to a law. Last year, lawmakers tried to push through a bill called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, which would have required proof of citizenship for voter registration, similar to a key part of President Trump’s later executive order. However, the SAVE Act was not ed in the Senate and never became law.

The President’s decision to then impose similar policies through an executive order was seen as an effort to by Congress and make policy without legislative approval. Critics called this approach a deeply flawed way of governing, suggesting that a president could simply enforce laws that Congress had refused to .

Despite a strong stock market and mostly positive economic signs, a widespread feeling of worry is taking hold in corporate boardrooms all over the United States. Goldman Sachs, in an unusual acknowledgment, has pointed out the increasing concerns of CEOs due to the Trump istration’s unpredictable economic policies, especially its large tax bill and ongoing trade talks.

The investment banking firm suggests these worries are causing a slowdown in investment and could harm future economic growth. The year started with clear optimism among business leaders, driven by hopes of fewer regulations and tax cuts. However, this early excitement faded quickly as the istration pushed aggressively for trade policies that protect U.S. industries, unsettling global supply chains and creating doubt about future trade relationships.

As reported by Politco, these changes led many companies to rethink their spending plans. Goldman Sachs told Politco, At the moment, there’s a sense that things are moving forward constructively, people would like the level of certainty around the policy direction to continue to increase.

Investment groups may be hurting thanks to Trump

Many have had to delay their plans. This hesitation in making investment decisions is expected to hurt economic growth in 2025. While Solomon notes that the istration’s recent trade language has seemed less aggressive, uncertainty remains. Businesses want more predictability and clear policy direction to feel confident and move forward with delayed investments.

The unpredictable nature of the istration’s trade maneuvers has sent shockwaves through supply chains. This is despite Wall Street noting a fresh surge of optimism following a court’s move to overturn major Trump tariffs.

Interestingly, Goldman Sachs’ own deal activity has stayed surprisingly strong despite the uncertainty. The total number of mergers and acquisitions has gone up. The firm explains this resilience by pointing to a backlog of strategic deals that were postponed due to strict regulations under the previous istration. Now, CEOs seem more confident that they have flexibility, which has encouraged them to move forward with these deals.

This positive trend is balanced by ongoing worries about regulations. The Federal Trade Commission’s decision to keep stricter merger rules from the last istration is causing concern. Along with political risks coming from Washington, these factors make corporate strategy more complicated and require careful handling. And it’s not only investors who’ve pulled back; international business travel to the U.S. has slumped sharply amid growing concerns over Washington’s unpredictable policy tone.

The proposed tax bill, which the istration calls the “big, beautiful bill,” is another major source of anxiety. While the idea of making the current tax system permanent is generally ed, the bill’s long-term effect on the country’s finances, especially the national debt and deficit, is still a key topic of debate. Goldman Sachs notes the absence of a clear plan to lower debt and deficit levels, raising fears that these issues could eventually limit investment and slow economic growth.

Certain parts of the tax bill, like Section 899, are adding to the frustration. This section, which aims to increase taxes on foreign individuals linked to “discriminatory foreign countries,” could discourage foreign investment in the U.S. The investment bank hopes lawmakers will consider the possible negative effects.

Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey, an outspoken Republican and vocal Donald Trump ally, made headlines on June 12, 2025.

During a tense press conference addrescoming anti‑Trump and anti‑ICE protests, he warned: “If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains, because we will kill you, graveyard dead.”

The growing anti‑Trump protests and “No Kings” events

Ivey’s remarks come amid a surge of anti‑Trump protests nationwide. On June 14, demonstrations dubbed “No Kings Day”—organized by the 50501 Movement—are planned across at least 24 U.S. cities, including Miami, Broward County, and Los Angeles.

Who is Sheriff Wayne Ivey?

Ivey rose to prominence in central Florida as a hardline law-and-order figure. He has repeatedly defended aggressive enforcement, especially around immigration and Trump-aligned demonstrations. While pledging to allow lawful protests, he has drawn a stark and intimidating boundary: any violence against his deputies warrants lethal retaliation.

Why this rhetoric sounds the alarm

Such language from an elected official is deeply unsettling. Threatening people with deadly force—even in reaction to violence—raises profound concerns about lawful restraint and democratic rights. Civil liberties advocates argue this risks excessive policing and militarization of local law enforcement: The rhetoric alone sends a menacing signal to anyone contemplating dissent.

In South Florida, local organizers have emphasized the importance of nonviolence and plan to maintain peaceful crowds. There were Florida-wide anti‑ICE rallies earlier this year, such as the April 5 “Hands Off!” protests, where participants raised banners against Trump and Musk.

Rising tensions in L.A. spotlight escalation

Elsewhere in the country, L.A. has emerged as a flashpoint. Tens of thousands have protested ICE raids, prompting a significant federal response: 2,000 National Guard troops, 700 Marines, and 4,000 Guardsmen were deployed under the Insurrection Act in early June.

Mayor Karen Bass imposed an 8 p.m. curfew after clashes involving flash-bangs, rubber bullets, and arrests. Civil rights advocates have condemned the federal military presence, warning it evokes authoritarian tactics and risks civil rights violations.

A chilling effect on Constitutional rights

Meanwhile, aggressive rhetoric by Sheriff Ivey mirrors the escalating tensions elsewhere, and it’s especially alarming in a democratic society. It fosters a chilling effect on constitutional rights to protest and reinforces the normalization of deadly force as a political tool. Surveillance of journalist arrests, such as the forcible removal of Senator Alex Padilla at DHS events in L.A., adds to the sense that democratic space is shrinking.

The Trump istration appears to have halted its plans to significantly increase the transfer of undocumented migrants to Guantanamo Bay, following considerable pushback and concerns from various quarters. The proposed plan, which involved vetting approximately 9,000 migrants for transfer to the base, would have marked a substantial increase from the current numbers.

According to Politico, the transfers, initially scheduled for later this week, were delayed partly due to unrest related to immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles, according to an istration official speaking on condition of anonymity. The timeline for potentially implementing the plan remains unclear.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt took X to address the reports, stating “Not happening,” while DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin further emphasized that “It was never a plan to begin with.” These denials came after Politico reported on the extensive vetting process for thousands of migrants.

European officials express concern over potential transfers

The proposal has particularly alarmed U.S. diplomats regarding the planned transfer of approximately 800 Europeans, raising concerns about straining relationships with European allies who typically cooperate in accepting deportees. Italian officials, in particular, have expressed strong opposition, with their foreign minister stating they are doing “everything” possible to prevent their citizens from being sent to Guantanamo.

The original plan was primarily designed to address bed space shortages in domestic detention facilities, as the White House pushes for increased arrest and deportation numbers through Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The istration has been seeking additional funding from Congress to expand domestic detention capacity and hire more agents.

According to documents obtained by Politico, the plan was recently developed and remained subject to change. The intention was to temporarily hold detainees at Guantanamo Bay before deporting them to their countries of origin, though specific detention durations were not specified.

The U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, located on Cuban soil but operated as a U.S. naval base, has faced recent legal challenges from immigrant rights groups. A federal class-action lawsuit currently pending in Washington reveals that approximately 70 immigrant detainees are being held there under what are described as “punitive” conditions, including insufficient food, limited clothing changes, and rodent infestations.

The istration’s apparent retreat from the plan represents a significant shift from President Trump’s January announcement, which outlined intentions to use the facility for holding up to 30,000 migrants found to be in the U.S. illegally. The current situation has left State Department officials awaiting clarification on the transfer process, with previous guidance on media responses now suspended.

Senate GOP’s conservative hard-liners who previously opposed the megabill are showing signs of softening their stance, particularly Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has notably shifted his position in recent weeks.

According to Politico, the change in tone comes as the White House and Republican leadership work intensively to secure crucial votes for the legislation, focusing particularly on three key senators: Ron Johnson, Mike Lee of Utah, and Rick Scott of Florida.

During a recent meeting with Finance Committee Republicans, Trump directly addressed Johnson’s negative public comments about the bill. “When the president says, ‘Ron, you’ve been so negative, that’s just not even helpful,’ I want to be helpful,” Johnson acknowledged, itting he had “downplayed what is good in the bill.”

White House employs strategic approach to win over fiscal hawks

The istration has engaged in a targeted campaign to secure from conservative senators, arranging private meetings and negotiations over specific provisions. Johnson, for instance, received a personal phone call from Trump and later met with Vice President JD Vance and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett to discuss his deficit reduction plan.

Just weeks ago, Johnson demanded extensive spending cuts and warned about the bill’s impact on the national deficit. However, following the istration’s engagement efforts, he has adopted a more conciliatory tone, stating, “We all want to see President Trump succeed. Everybody is trying to help.”

The shift in position from these fiscal hawks is crucial for Majority Leader John Thune, who can only afford to lose three GOP senators, with Vice President Vance potentially breaking a tie. The leadership already faces one confirmed “no” vote from Senator Rand Paul, who opposes the bill’s debt ceiling increase.

The negotiations continue as senators push for additional concessions. Mike Lee is seeking to include his REINS Act, a deregulatory proposal, while Johnson is advocating for a “forcing mechanism” to maintain long-term spending reductions. Republican colleagues appear confident that these holdouts will eventually the bill, with Senator John Kennedy remarking, “They’re very gettable.”

Despite ongoing resistance and continued demands for modifications, the tone from the conservative senators has notably shifted. Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham has promised Johnson a second reconciliation bill for additional spending cuts, though Johnson maintains this alone would not secure his . Meanwhile, House conservatives express concern that the Senate might weaken their hard-won policy victories in the final version of the bill.

President Trump has had one of the most consistently toxic stances on immigration in recent history. He has called some immigrants rapists, falsely accused others of being in gangs — but he has now, surprisingly, had a change of heart.

Trump’s immigration policies have so far led to rioting protests in LA and multiple lawsuits, but reportedly, that’s not what led to his one-eighty on the issue. The U.S. has practical, day-to-day needs for immigrants — a reality the GOP often loves to gloss over. But sometimes reality outweighs narrative, and jobs essential to the balance of society — and the people who actually do them — need their due and respect.

Trump, surprisingly, itted that his own aggressive immigration policies have hurt the farming and hospitality industries. In a statement delivered to a reporter at the White House, Trump said, “We can’t do that to our farmers and leisure, too, hotels. We’ll have to use common sense on that.” These key sectors have been reporting staffing shortages in growing numbers, and business owners have started to reach out to the President directly after personally feeling the pinch.

Trump says farmers are "being hurt badly" by deportations. "You go into a farm and you look and people, they've been there for 20 or 25 years and worked great and the owner of the farm loves them and you're supposed to throw them out">LA and the resulting riot-caused curfew — is a telltale sign that immigration is more than just a legal matter in American life; it’s a cultural one. So when you respond with weapons and threats, the situation only escalates. Business cannot go on as usual with this approach, and Trump’s reputation takes an even bigger hit.

It’s not just Democrats sounding the alarm. These are bipartisan concerns about the labor shortages being created by ICE’s aggressive enforcement tactics. This one issue is quickly evolving into a complex dance heading into the midterm elections. Trump has to balance appeasing his MAGA followers — whose ideology blames immigration for every problem — and the economic realities faced by his inner circle.

At this point, it’s best to watch what he does, not what he says.

]]> https://wegotthiscovered.moviesx.org/politics/we-cant-do-that-to-our-farmers-trump-does-a-one-eighty-on-immigration-and-claims-its-now-time-to-use-common-sense/feed/ 0 1856984