The BLUE PRESS JOURNAL

We aim to be a voice in the ongoing political discourse, providing both factual information and opinionated analysis, from a progressive or center-left perspective, free from the direct influence of major
established Main Street Media.

  • Trump’s White House Remodel Plans Spark Lawsuit from National Trust for Historic Preservation

    Bleu Press Journal – President Donald Trump’s ambitious renovation plans for the White House have hit a roadblock, courtesy of a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The congressionally chartered non-profit, dedicated to preserving America’s most treasured historic buildings, is seeking an injunction to block the construction of a massive new ballroom until review panels have assessed the potential impact on the iconic presidential residence.

    At the heart of the dispute lies the Trump administration’s desire to expand the White House’s social and entertainment spaces. The proposed addition of a grand ballroom, part of a larger renovation effort, has raised concerns among preservationists that the historic integrity of the building might be compromised. The National Trust, which has a long-standing relationship with the White House, is urging caution and calling for a more deliberative, public process to ensure that any changes align with preservation standards.

    “We understand the desire to modernize and enhance the White House as a working residence and symbol of American democracy,” said Stephanie Meeks, President and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. “However, such significant changes must be carefully vetted and balanced against the building’s irreplaceable cultural and historic value.”

    The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the Trump administration’s plans are moving forward without adequate public input and review by the relevant federal agencies and the Commission of Fine Arts, which advises on architectural matters related to the White House and its grounds.

    The National Trust is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt construction until the review process is completed. In a statement, the organization emphasized its commitment to working collaboratively with the White House and other stakeholders to find a solution that respects both the building’s historic character and the president’s needs.

    As the legal battle unfolds, the case highlights the delicate balance between preserving America’s cultural heritage and accommodating the needs of its current occupants. The White House, a National Historic Landmark since 1960, is not only a symbol of U.S. democracy but also a working residence, requiring periodic updates to meet the evolving demands of the presidency.

    The Trump administration has argued that the planned renovations, including the addition of a 6,500-square-foot ballroom, are essential for enhancing the White House’s functionality and Dubai-style entertainment capabilities. However, preservationists counter that such alterations could irreversibly alter the building’s historic fabric and compromise its long-term integrity.

    The lawsuit’s outcome will set a crucial precedent for balancing preservation objectives with the needs of public institutions like the White House. As the National Trust’s Meeks noted, “The White House is a national treasure that belongs to all Americans, and it’s our responsibility to protect it for future generations.”

    With the legal proceedings underway, the fate of President Trump’s grand ballroom plans remains uncertain. One thing is clear, however: the debate underscores the enduring importance of historic preservation in America and the need for thoughtful, deliberative approaches to ensuring that our nation’s most cherished landmarks remain vibrant, relevant, and enduring symbols of our shared heritage.

  • Donald Trump’s Claim of Winning 2020 Election Is False: A Look at the Facts and Court Decisions

    Following the 2020 United States presidential election, Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that he had actually won, despite Joe Biden being declared the winner by the Electoral College and various news organizations. However, numerous facts and legal decisions have consistently shown that Trump’s assertion is false.

    One of the most prominent court cases challenging the election results was Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al. In December 2020, 18 Republican attorneys general and 126 congressional Republicans filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court, arguing that four swing states (Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin) had violated election laws, thus making Biden’s victory invalid. The case was a long shot, as it sought to overturn the Electoral College and award all 78 electoral votes to Trump.

    On December 11, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit in a 9-0 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the brief unsigned opinion, stating, “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” The Court essentially ruled that states have sovereign authority to run their own elections and that the federal judiciary would not intervene in such matters.

    Additionally, numerous recounts and audits have consistently validated Biden’s victory in the key swing states. In Georgia, for instance, two separate recounts, including a hand recount of more than 5 million ballots, confirmed Biden’s win. Similarly, a partial audit in Arizona, a state initially thought to be closely contested, found no evidence of widespread fraud that could flip the election.

    Trump’s own Attorney General, William Barr, stated that the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread fraud that could change the outcome of the election. In a November 2020 memo, Barr wrote, “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election.”

    Other facts debunking Trump’s claim include:

    1. Trump’s campaign and its allies lost multiple lawsuits in various courts, including the Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate the election results.
    2. An April 2021 report from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) found that the 2020 election was “the most secure in American history.”
    3. Republican election officials in key swing states have consistently reaffirmed the integrity of their states’ elections, with some even calling for Trump to accept the results.

    Despite Trump’s continued claims to the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court’s rejection of Texas v. Pennsylvania, the findings of recounts and audits, and the statements of top officials all contradict Trump’s baseless assertions. It is essential for political leaders to accept the legitimacy of democratic processes, even when they do not align with their preferences. Trump’s refusal to do so undermines faith in the electoral system and the stability of American democracy.

  •  Sen. Bill Cassidy’s High Deductible Proposal: A Bad Deal for Americans Under the ACA

    Blue Press Journal – U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) recently introduced a bill that aims to replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a high deductible health plan (HDHP) system. While intended as a means to reduce healthcare costs, this proposal would ultimately harm American consumers and compromise their healthcare needs.

    Key Issues with the Cassidy Proposal:

    1. Unaffordable Out-of-Pocket Expenses: HDHPs come with significantly higher deductibles than traditional plans. For individuals, this means spending a substantial amount of money out-of-pocket before insurance kicks in. Under the Cassidy plan, families would need to pay around $13,000 annually for a deductible, making healthcare unaffordable for many middle- and low-income households.
    2. Limited Coverage and Emergency Care Risks: With deductibles so high, many essential healthcare services would be inaccessible for those who can’t afford the upfront costs. This poses significant risks during medical emergencies, where timely treatment is crucial. Delaying or forgoing care due to financial constraints can lead to poorer health outcomes and increased long-term costs.
    3. Increased Premium Instability: HDHPs often come with lower premiums compared to comprehensive plans. However, premium prices would still vary significantly between insurance providers, potentially making it difficult for consumers to compare and choose the best option for their needs. This instability could lead to market disruptions and further exacerbate affordability challenges.
    4. Imperiled Pre-existing Condition Protections: The Cassidy proposal would allow states more flexibility in setting their own health insurance regulations. This could result in some states not protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions, as they were under the ACA. People with chronic illnesses or medical histories would again face discriminatory pricing and coverage denials.
    5. Medicaid Expansion and Funding Concerns: The bill aims to convert Medicaid to a block grant program, which could lead to reduced federal funding for this critical health safety net. As a result, millions of low-income Americans, including children, seniors, and people with disabilities, might lose access to essential healthcare services or face reduced coverage.
    6. Lack of Employer Contributions and Coordination: The Cassidy plan relies heavily on individual purchases, neglecting the crucial role employers play in providing health coverage for their workers. Without mandated employer contributions, more people would be forced to navigate the complex insurance market on their own, increasing administrative burdens and costs.

    While Sen. Cassidy’s proposal may intend to reform healthcare, the high deductible account system poses significant threats to the well-being and financial security of Americans. By increasing costs, limiting access to essential care, and potentially undermining pre-existing condition protections and Medicaid, this plan would set the country back on its progress toward a more equitable and sustainable healthcare system.

  • The President’s Health: A Labyrinth of Secrecy and Concerns

    Blue Press Journal – The presidency is one of the most demanding and public-facing jobs in the world. Yet, when it comes to the current sitting president’s health, the White House has consistently maintained a veil of secrecy that raises more questions than it answers. Opportunistic speculation aside, it’s crucial to separate fact from fiction and critically examine the concerns surrounding the president’s physical and mental well-being.

    The latest medical check-up, conducted by White House physicians, only further fuelled the narrative of understated health issues. Officially, the president’s ‘overall health is excellent’ and he ‘remains fit for duty.’ However, these blanket statements fail to provide any tangible evidence or specifics about his condition. What exactly were the results of the various tests, scans, and evaluations performed? Which metrics were deemed ‘excellent’? The American public deserves transparency about the president’s health, especially given the immense responsibility he carries.

    CT scans, often used to diagnose and monitor conditions like brain injuries, have also become a point of concern. The President has undergone at least two CT scans in recent months, although the White House has not provided any details about the scans’ results or purpose. This secrecy surrounding the President’s medical testing is particularly troubling, as it deprives the public of essential information about his health status.

    Moreover, the president’s medical history is woefully underreported. According to some sources, he has been taking medications for a range of conditions, including high cholesterol, diabetes, and hypertension. These are significant health concerns that often require lifestyle changes and close monitoring. The fact that they’ve been concealed or downplayed casts doubt over the administration’s commitment to accountability and truthfulness.

    Furthermore, there are mounting signs of physical deterioration that cannot be easily dismissed. The president’s frequent complaints of exhaustion, joint pain, and weight fluctuations are symptoms that, if left unchecked, could indicate more severe underlying issues. Add to that his reportedly grueling work schedule, often requiring him to work late into the night and make multiple trips abroad, and it’s a recipe for fatigue and burnout.

    Perhaps most troubling, however, is the president’s apparent reluctance to engage in open, honest discourse about his health. In an era where mental and physical wellness are increasingly recognized as essential components of overall leadership, the president’s reticence to discuss his own health is both concerning and irresponsible. How can he inspire others to prioritize their well-being when he himself seems unwilling to do so?

    In conclusion, while the president’s health is undoubtedly a private matter, the White House’s persistent secrecy and lack of transparency create an atmosphere of mistrust and heightened speculation. As the leader of the free world, it is imperative that the public receives accurate, timely information about the president’s health. Anything less perpetuates a culture of suspicion and undermines faith in the institution of the presidency itself. Until a more open dialogue about the president’s health is initiated, concerns will inevitably persist, and the long-term consequences for his own well-being and that of the nation remain uncertain.

  • Trump DOJ’s Attempt to Block Testimony in Contempt Inquiry Signals Deepening Crisis

    Blue Press Journal – In yet another troubling chapter of the Trump-era Justice Department’s record, lawyers representing Donald Trump’s DOJ are reportedly scrambling to block their own officials from testifying in a contempt of court inquiry. The case, which stems from Judge James Boasberg’s investigation into potential contempt in the original Alien Enemies Act litigation, has now reached the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — a sign of the high stakes involved.

    The extraordinary lengths to which the Trump DOJ is going to shield its attorneys from questioning underscores a familiar pattern: obstruction, delay, and a disregard for judicial oversight. Rather than cooperating in a straightforward inquiry meant to uphold the rule of law, the department under Trump appears intent on keeping potentially damaging information from ever surfacing in court.

    Such stonewalling corrodes public trust in government institutions. The judiciary’s contempt power exists precisely to hold officials to account when they defy lawful orders. By fighting to muzzle its own lawyers, the Trump DOJ is sending a clear message — loyalty to the president and his political agenda takes precedence over adherence to the law. 

    This behavior is not an aberration, but part of a consistent ethos that defined the Trump administration: an executive branch unwilling to submit to checks and balances, willing to claim sweeping immunity, and quick to cry political persecution when pressed for transparency. That the issue here arises under the Alien Enemies Act case — a law with its own fraught history — only heightens the stakes for civil liberties and constitutional governance.

    As the D.C. Circuit weighs the DOJ’s appeal, it faces a choice that will reverberate beyond this single case. Siding with secrecy would embolden future administrations to defy court oversight; insisting on testimony would reaffirm that no president, and no government lawyer, is above the law.

  • US at Risk of Losing Measles Elimination Status Amid Vaccine Misinformation Concerns, with RFK Jr. in the Spotlight

    Blue press Journal – The United States is facing the possibility of losing its measles elimination status, a designation it achieved in 2000, according to public health officials. This status, granted by the World Health Organization, signifies the absence of continuous measles transmission for 12 months or more. However, rising outbreaks fueled by declining vaccination rates have put this achievement in jeopardy.

    In the recent year, measles cases have surged in several states, linked primarily to communities with low immunization coverage. Experts point to the spread of vaccine misinformation as a significant driver. Among the most visible figures associated with anti-vaccine rhetoric is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who has long questioned vaccine safety despite overwhelming scientific evidence supporting immunization.

    Kennedy, who founded the anti-vaccine advocacy group Children’s Health Defense, has amplified unfounded claims about the alleged dangers of vaccines, including the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) shot. Public health officials warn that such messaging undermines trust in vaccines and can lead to hesitancy, leaving communities vulnerable to preventable disease outbreaks.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stresses that maintaining high vaccination coverage—typically above 95%—is essential to prevent measles from regaining a foothold. Measles is among the most contagious viruses known, and even a small drop in immunization rates can lead to rapid spread.

    If transmission continues for more than a year, the U.S. could lose its elimination status, a symbolic setback and a sign of eroding public health protections. Health experts urge the public to rely on scientifically verified sources for vaccine information, emphasizing that measles is not a benign childhood illness but a potentially deadly disease.

    The situation dramatically underscores the perilous collision of public health and rampant misinformation—and the dire fallout that ensues when baseless claims drown out scientific truth. Thanks to Donald Trump for the dubious honor of appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to this chaos.

  • Trump’s Redistricting Pressure Campaign Backfires in Indiana Senate 

    Blue Press Journal – In a stunning rebuke to President Donald Trump’s heavy-handed pressure campaign, 21 out of 40 Republican state senators in Indiana voted against adopting new congressional maps that would have eliminated the state’s two Democratic-held House seats. Trump’s all-or-nothing attempts to strong-arm the senators into submission only led to further division and opposition.

    Trump unleashed a barrage of social media posts, threatening GOP Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray and other holdouts with fierce primary challenges if they didn’t cede to his redistricting demands. Vice President JD Vance made multiple rounds to Indianapolis to try to sway the lawmakers personally. Even the White House and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) got involved, individually calling senators to push them to flip their votes. 

    However, the blitzkrieg of intimidation, threats, and attempted violence targeting senators who opposed the effort only amplified their resolve. Instead of cowering, a majority of the GOP caucus stood united against Trump’s demands, citing concerns that mid-census redistricting was a power grab and should only occur once a decade after the census.

    Senator Eric Bassler was among those who reiterated their commitment to standing by the maps they voted for four years ago, demonstrating an unwavering commitment to principle over political pressure. “I cannot support any mid-census redistricting plan,” Bassler stated firmly. “Four years ago, my Republican colleagues and I voted for our current state and federal legislative maps. I stand by that vote and I will not support legislation to change our congressional maps.”

    This rejection for Trump is a reminder that even political titans can fall when they breach boundaries of decency. It offers hope: if lawmakers stand against bullying, honorable politics might rise from extreme partisanship. Ultimately, Trump’s reckless redistricting gamble leaves him with humiliation, confirming the importance of integrity in public service.

  • Donald Trump and the “Pencil” Problem: Why the President’s Holiday Message Misses the Mark

    Why American’s are Mad as Hell

    Blue Press Journal – Senior Political Analyst

    Published: December 12 /2025

    When President Donald Trump took the podium this week in Pennsylvania to discuss “tightening belts” for the upcoming holiday season, the reaction from ordinary Americans was unmistakable: bewilderment, frustration, and a growing sense that the commander‑in‑chief is living in a reality far removed from theirs. The centerpiece of his address—a quirky, almost whimsical suggestion that families could forgo a few foreign‑made pencils in favor of domestic products—has quickly become a symbol of a deeper disconnect between the nation’s leader and the electorate he was elected to serve.

    The “Pencil” Pitch in Context

    Trump’s remarks were framed as a patriotic call to action: “You can give up certain products, you can give up pencils because under the China policy, every child can get 37 pencils. They only need one or two.” On the surface, the statement seems innocuous—a light‑hearted nod to the ongoing trade war with Beijing. Yet, when examined against the broader economic backdrop, it reveals several troubling undercurrents.

    1. Inflation Is Still a Live Issue
      One of Trump’s central campaign promises in 2024 was to “fix the inflation disaster” that he blamed on President Joe Biden’s fiscal policies. While the Consumer Price Index (CPI) has modestly cooled from its 2022 peak, core inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2 % target. For families already grappling with higher grocery bills, gas prices, and rising rent, a suggestion to surrender a handful of school supplies feels tone‑deaf rather than inspiring.
    2. Supply‑Chain Realities
      The global pencil market is dominated by manufacturers in China and Indonesia, where economies of scale allow a single “pencil” to be produced for a fraction of the cost of a domestically made counterpart. By urging consumers to “give up” imported pencils, Trump implicitly dismisses the fact that many American schools and families rely on low‑cost supplies to keep classroom budgets afloat. The policy he champions—greater protectionism—has historically led to higher prices, not savings.
    3. The Symbolic vs. the Substantive
      A president’s rhetoric matters, but it must be tethered to concrete policy outcomes. Trump’s tariffs have, in some sectors, spurred short‑term gains for a handful of domestic manufacturers. However, the broader economy has seen a slowdown in export‑dependent industries, with retaliatory tariffs eroding market access for U.S. farmers and tech firms. In this light, the “pencil” anecdote is less an earnest call for patriotism than a symbolic gesture that masks the real costs of protectionist policy.

    Why Voters Are Growing Angry

    The holiday season traditionally amplifies concerns about household budgets. According to the latest Pew Research Center poll, 62 % of Americans say they expect to “tighten spending” over the next six months. When a president—especially one who campaigned on restoring economic stability—asks citizens to “give up pencils,” the reaction is not merely a chuckle; it is a genuine expression of frustration.

    • Economic Insecurity Is Not a Gimmick
      For a single‑parent household in the Midwest, the idea of swapping a cheap, imported pencil for a pricier domestic version is not a matter of patriotism but of financial necessity. The president’s comment trivializes the day‑to‑day decisions that low‑income families make: which bills to prioritize, whether to cut back on heating, or if they can afford a modest holiday gift.
    • A Disconnect From the Voter Base
      Trump’s political ascent was built on a promise to “drain the swamp” and bring a business‑savvy mindset to Washington. Yet, his current messaging reflects a leadership style that favors grandstanding over nuanced problem‑solving. The “pencil” remarks, like many of his recent speeches, suggest a preference for rhetorical fireworks rather than a detailed plan to combat the lingering effects of inflation, supply‑chain disruptions, and labor market volatility.
    • Erosion of Trust in Governance
      When elected officials appear out of step with the lived experiences of their constituents, public trust erodes. The 2025 Gallup confidence index shows a modest decline in trust toward the federal government, dropping from 35 % in 2023 to 31 % today. While many factors contribute to this decline, high‑profile missteps—such as the holiday “pencil” pitch— exacerbate the perception that the administration is disconnected from ordinary Americans.

    The Bigger Picture: Policy Over Pantomime

    Trump’s call to “surrender pencils” should be viewed through the lens of his broader trade agenda. Protectionist tariffs, when wielded without strategic nuance, can produce unintended consequences:

    • Higher Consumer Prices
      By limiting imports, domestic producers often raise prices to cover higher production costs. That means families pay more for the very goods they are being asked to “support.”
    • Retaliatory Measures
      China’s own tariffs on American agricultural products have already dented farm incomes, especially in the heartland. The ripple effects extend beyond the farm gate, touching food processing, distribution, and ultimately, grocery shelves. A good example is Trump’s 12 billion dollar farmer bailout because of his Tariffs.
    • Innovation Stagnation
      Open competition spurs innovation. Shielding domestic firms from foreign competition can create complacency, reducing the incentive to improve quality or lower costs—a risk that could ultimately harm American competitiveness on the global stage.

    What a Realistic Response Looks Like

    If the administration truly intends to help Americans navigate a tighter holiday budget, the policy playbook should include:

    1. Targeted Relief for Low‑Income Households – Expand the Child Tax Credit and supplemental nutrition assistance to offset the cost of essential school supplies and groceries.
    2. Strategic Trade Negotiations – Shift from blanket tariffs to sector‑specific agreements that protect critical industries while preserving access to affordable imports.
    3. Transparent Communication – Move away from anecdotal, symbolic exhortations and instead provide clear, data‑driven guidance on how households can stretch their dollars without compromising essential needs.
    4. Investment in Domestic Manufacturing – Support small‑ and medium‑sized enterprises through tax incentives and workforce training, ensuring that “Made‑in‑America” goods are competitive on price and quality.

    President Trump’s holiday message about “giving up pencils” may have been intended as a MAGA rallying cry for economic patriotism, but it ultimately underscores a growing chasm between Donald Trump‘s Oval Office and the American public. In a time when families are already feeling the pinch of lingering inflation and rising living costs, symbolic gestures ring hollow. What voters need—not a glossy sound bite about pencils—but concrete, compassionate policy that acknowledges their everyday realities.

    The presidency is, at its core, a service to the people. Trump has lost sight of the very individuals he was elected to represent, the social contract frays.

  • GOP Blocks Health Care Rescue Bill as Millions Face Soaring Premiums

    Blue Press Journal (DC) 12/11/25 – A critical bipartisan opportunity to prevent massive health insurance premium spikes has collapsed in the Senate, as Republicans overwhelmingly rejected a Democratic proposal to extend life-saving Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. Despite growing alarm over the financial fallout for American families, the GOP’s refusal to support a clean, three-year extension has left millions at risk of unaffordable coverage just as enrollment for next year begins.

    The Democratic-backed bill, which aimed to continue enhanced subsidies introduced during the pandemic, received 51 votes—just enough to pass under a simple majority if not for the 60-vote threshold required under current Senate rules. Four Republican senators—Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Josh Hawley (R-MO)—broke with their party to support the measure. But their bipartisan effort was not enough to overcome unified GOP opposition.

    These subsidies have been instrumental in making health insurance affordable for low- and middle-income Americans. Since their expansion, enrollment in ACA plans has surged to record levels, and average premiums have dropped significantly. Without action, those gains are poised to vanish overnight. Experts project that monthly premiums could increase by hundreds of dollars for millions of Americans, particularly those earning just above the poverty line.

    The consequences are not hypothetical. For a family of four in a mid-sized city, the loss of subsidies could mean paying an extra $5,000 or more annually for coverage. For many, that burden will force impossible choices: pay for health insurance or afford rent, groceries, or prescription medications.

    And yet, the Republican response has been marked by inaction and disarray. While Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic bill, House Republicans remain deeply divided on any alternative solution. There is no unified GOP plan—no proposal with policy details, no cost estimates, no pathway to enactment. Their silence speaks volumes: rather than crafting a solution, the party has chosen political obstruction over human consequence.

    This isn’t just about policy disagreements. It’s about priorities. At a moment when Americans are still grappling with the economic aftermath of a pandemic and enduring high costs for essentials like food, gas, and housing, the Republican leadership has decided that protecting working families from skyrocketing health care costs is not worth their support. Their refusal to act, again and again, underscores a broader abandonment of the very constituents they claim to serve.

    Make no mistake: the bottom line is clear. Republicans—and Donald Trump, whose influence over the party remains profound—have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not care about the affordability and accessibility of health care for ordinary Americans. They have rejected pragmatic, bipartisan compromise not because of policy concerns, but because of political calculation.

  • The Struggle is Real: How Trump’s Policies are Affecting American Affordability

    Blue Press Journal – The prevailing economic conditions under the Trump administration have resulted in numerous Americans facing significant difficulties in securing their basic needs. The sobering truth is that both essential commodities and substantial expenditures are becoming progressively out of reach for a considerable segment of the population.

    Recent findings from The POLITICO Poll, conducted by Public First, shed light on the gravity of the situation. Nearly half of Americans reported difficulties in affording essential expenses such as groceries, utility bills, healthcare, housing, and transportation. The consequences of these affordability pressures are far-reaching, with 27% of respondents admitting to having skipped a medical check-up due to costs within the last two years. Furthermore, 23% stated that they had skipped a prescription dose for the same reason.

    These statistics reveal a shocking truth about the economic nightmare many Americans endure. The fact that so many can’t even afford basic necessities screams that current economic policies are failing a vast majority of the population. As the nation pushes ahead, it is absolutely crucial that policymakers wake up and recognize how their decisions are crushing the most vulnerable among us. We need a bold, comprehensive strategy to tackle these crippling affordability issues, or else we risk condemning countless Americans to a life devoid of the essentials they need to survive, let alone thrive.

    One could argue that Trump has completely dozed off at the helm while America spirals into chaos.