Blue Press Journal

Category: Posts

  • Big Changes Coming to Your Healthcare Costs in 2026 — And Who’s (Not) Helping You

    Health Care Premium Hike in 2026: and Republicans Refuse to Act

    Blue Press Journal – On January 1, 2026, millions of Americans will face a painful spike in health insurance premiums. This surge is directly tied to the scheduled expiration of the enhanced subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — subsidies first expanded under the American Rescue Plan in 2021 and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act.

    If Congress fails to extend these subsidies, health care costs will rise sharply — and the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, has made it clear they have no intention of renewing them.

    How Much Will Premiums Rise?

    According to the Congressional Budget Office and Kaiser Family Foundation analysis, without the enhanced ACA subsidies:

    • Middle-income families (earning $50,000–$75,000/year) will see average annual premiums increase by $1,200–$2,400 per household.
    • Older enrollees in their early 60s could see premiums jump by $4,000–$6,000 annually in some states.
    • Nationally, the average premium for a benchmark silver plan could rise up to 53% for those losing subsidy eligibility.
    • The number of uninsured Americans could increase by 3–4 million in 2026 alone.

    Projected Annual Premium Increases by Income Bracket (when subsidies lapse)

    Annual Income (Family of 3)Avg. Premium Increase (National)Example State Impact
    $35,000 (150% FPL)$0–$500 (still eligible for some subsidy)CA: +$300
    $55,000 (250% FPL)+$1,800TX: +$2,200
    $85,000 (400% FPL)+$4,500FL: +$5,000
    $120,000 (550% FPL)+$6,600WY: +$7,200

    (FPL = Federal Poverty Level; figures based on KFF and CBO modeling)

    Why Enhanced ACA Subsidies Lower Premiums for Everyone

    The enhanced subsidies don’t just help those who qualify — they stabilize the entire ACA marketplace:

    1. Risk Pool Balance – More healthy people can afford coverage, which spreads risk and keeps average premiums lower for all enrollees.
    2. Market Competition – Stable enrollment encourages insurers to participate in more counties, increasing competition and slowing price hikes.
    3. Reduced Uncompensated Care – Hospitals face fewer unpaid bills, which indirectly lowers costs for insured patients.

    Without these subsidies, healthier middle-income Americans are more likely to drop coverage, leaving sicker, costlier patients in the pool — triggering a premium spiral.

    The Republican Stance and Trump’s Position

    Despite the clear evidence of harm, Republicans in Congress have opposed making the enhanced subsidies permanent. Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers have repeatedly called for dismantling the ACA framework entirely, reviving repeal rhetoric from 2017.
    Rather than offering a plan to prevent the 2026 premium spike, many Republicans have characterized the subsidies as “government handouts,” ignoring the reality that they function as a cost-control measure for the entire insured population.

    The Bottom Line

    The enhanced ACA subsidies are not just a safety net for the poor; they are a brake on runaway premiums for everyone.

    The refusal by Republican leadership and Donald Trump to extend them is, in effect, a decision to let costs soar.

  • Democratic Senators Demand Answers from Trump Adviser Susie Wiles on “Epstein File” Access

    Blue Press Journal – Two senior Democratic senators have launched a formal inquiry into Susie Wiles, a top adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, over her admitted access to “the Epstein file,” raising serious questions about the handling of sensitive documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case.

    In a letter sent to Wiles, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) are demanding a detailed accounting of her access to the materials, her purpose for reviewing them, and whether any information was shared with the President.

    The inquiry stems from a recent two-part Vanity Fair series featuring interviews with Trump’s inner circle, including Wiles. In her interview, Wiles mentioned reviewing materials from “the Epstein file,” a comment that has now triggered a formal request for information from Capitol Hill.

    The senators have requested Wiles’ response by January 5, asking her to address the following key points:

    • What was in the file? The senators want to know the contents of the materials Wiles reviewed. Crucially, they ask if any of the information had been presented to a grand jury, indicating their concern over the potential release of sensitive, pre-indictment, or classified information.
    • Why and when did she have access? They are seeking a timeline of her access—when it began and the schedule of her review—and the specific purpose for her reviewing such sensitive documents.
    • What was her role in the process? The senators press for details on her actions concerning the file. Did she share any of its contents with President Trump? What was her involvement in any process to review, redact, withhold, or release material from the file? And critically, were the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation involved in any such process?

    The Democratic senators are signaling their intent to hold the new administration accountable for the handling of sensitive government materials, drawing parallels to past controversies involving the storage and dissemination of classified information.

    The questions posed to Susie Wiles are direct and demanding. Her response will be closely watched as an early indicator of how the Trump administration will approach congressional oversight and transparency on matters of significant public interest and national security.

  • Boebert Questions Trump Veto: Is Politics Over People?

    Blue Press Journal – President Donald Trump’s recent veto of a bipartisan measure to secure clean drinking water for thousands of Colorado residents has ignited a firestorm of controversy—particularly from within his own party. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a staunch MAGA ally, is publicly questioning whether the President’s decision constitutes “political retaliation” against her.

    The bill in question, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, aimed to fund a critical pipeline delivering clean water to roughly 50,000 people in the Arkansas River Valley. Despite Boebert’s sponsorship and the bill’s bipartisan support, the President rejected the measure.

    While Boebert has consistently championed Trump’s “America First” agenda, she recently broke ranks over the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The Congresswoman has been vocal in demanding full transparency regarding the late child predator, who once referred to Trump as his “closest friend.”

    In a statement released on X, Boebert expressed her dismay: “I sincerely hope this veto has nothing to do with political retaliation for calling out corruption and demanding accountability.” She emphasized that the American people deserve leadership that prioritizes essential needs over partisan squabbles.

    This clash highlights a rare fracture in the Republican front. As constituents in Colorado await access to clean water, the situation raises uncomfortable questions about the cost of dissent and whether the White House is prioritizing personal grievances over the public good. For Boebert, the veto serves as a stark reminder that even loyal allies can find themselves at odds with the President when seeking accountability.

  • “Very Relaxing to Me”: White House Aides Reportedly Urged Trump to Stop Falling Asleep in Public

    Blue Press Journal – The oldest person ever sworn in as president is facing renewed scrutiny over his fitness for office, as reports surface that his own aides have felt compelled to counsel him on the basic act of staying awake in public.

    According to a new report from The Wall Street Journal, White House aides have “counseled him to try to keep his eyes open during public events, fearing the optics of his appearing to fall asleep.” The revelation comes amidst a troubling pattern of public behavior from Donald Trump, whose advanced age has become an increasingly difficult topic for his administration to ignore.

    In recent weeks, observers have noted multiple instances where the President appeared to doze off while on camera. Whether sitting in a courtroom or attending a memorial service, Trump has been seen with his eyes closed and posture slack, seemingly disengaged from the events unfolding around him.

    When confronted by The Wall Street Journal regarding these embarrassing episodes, Trump offered a defense that many may find less than convincing.

    “I’ll just close [my eyes]. It’s very relaxing to me,” Trump told the outlet. “Sometimes they’ll take a picture of me blinking, blinking, and they’ll catch me with the blink.”

    The President’s explanation stands in stark contrast to the concerns reportedly held by his own staff. The fact that West Wing aides feel the need to explicitly coach the Commander-in-Chief on maintaining alertness underscores the severity of the situation. It suggests a leadership style increasingly hindered by physical limitations, raising uncomfortable questions about who is truly managing the optics—and perhaps the substance—of the presidency.

    As Trump continues to be the oldest individual to hold the highest office in the land, these incidents are no longer mere “fake news” or media exaggeration, but visible evidence of a potential decline. If the President requires prompting just to keep his eyes open during official duties, the American public has a right to wonder how much of the job he is actually conscious enough to perform.

  • Trump’s 2025: A Blueprint for Democratic Erosion?

    Blue Press Journal’s Year End Review of the Trump Administration

    As the 2025 calendar years in, Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office has reignited concerns over the fragility of American democracy. While the former president’s tenure was marked by unprecedented attacks on norms and institutions, his recent return his actions in 2025 suggest a patterned effort to consolidate power and weaken democratic checks. Here are five troubling examples of how Trump’s administration has allegedly advanced policies and rhetoric that threaten foundational democratic principles. 

    1. Exploiting Federal Agencies to Criminalize Dissent
    In 2025, the Department of Justice has reportedly prioritized prosecuting journalists and activists critical of the administration under vague “domestic terrorism” definitions. Trump’s Justice Department, led by allies, has allegedly revisited FISA warrants and surveillance practices to target political opponents, echoing his 2016 campaign’s baseless claims of “witch hunts.” Such actions blur the line between legitimate dissent and criminality, chilling free speech. 

    2. Weaponizing Foreign Policy for Personal Gain
    Trump’s 2025 State Department has been criticized for sidelining career diplomats in favor of wealthy donors and henchmen, reportedly brokering deals with foreign leaders to exchange favors for financial rewards.  A $1.5 billion real estate project in Vietnam involving the Trump Organization was approved shortly before trade negotiations began between the U.S. and Vietnam.

    3. Suppressing Mail-In Voting to Rig Elections
    2025 has seen renewed efforts to undermine public trust in voting infrastructure. Trump’s Justice Department has sued to limit mail-in ballot access in key states, citing unproven fraud claims, while his allies in Congress have pushed to penalize counties with high voter turnout. This echoes his 2020 claims of election fraud and undermines faith in electoral fairness. 

    4. Co-opting the Military for Political Power
    Trump’s 2025 National Security Council reportedly instructed the Pentagon to prepare for “rapid deployment” of troops to polling stations during elections, raising alarms about militarizing domestic affairs. Military leaders have privately warned that such moves risk normalizing the use of force to legitimize politically motivated outcomes—a direct threat to civilian control of the armed forces. 

    5. Stifling Dissent in Federal Employment
    In 2025, the Trump administration has allegedly pressured federal agencies to purge employees who publicly disagree with White House policies. For example, the EPA reportedly retaliated against scientists who opposed rolling back climate regulations, while the IRS has been accused of targeting “liberal” charities. This reflects a broader pattern of treating federal jobs as political spoils, eroding merit-based governance. 

    A Democracy in Peril
    Trump’s 2025 actions reveal a consistent strategy of weakening democratic institutions—courts, media, elections, and civil service—to entrench his power. As history shows, democratic norms can erode quickly under determined autocrats. The onus on citizens, media, and institutions to hold power accountable has never been clearer. Without vigilance, the U.S. risks becoming a “republic in name only.”

  • The Erosion of Justice: Five Ways AG Pam Bondi Undermined the Rule of Law in 2025

    Blue Press Journal’s Year End Review of the Trump Administration

    When Pam Bondi was sworn in as Attorney General in 2025, she promised to restore “law and order” to a system she viewed as broken. However, as the year draws to a close, it is clear that her tenure has not restored order so much as it has dismantled the guardrails of impartial justice. By weaponizing the Department of Justice (DOJ) for political ends and dismantling civil rights protections, Bondi has left the American justice system more fragile and partisan than it has been in decades.

    Here are the five most damaging actions taken by Attorney General Bondi in 2025 that have hurt America’s justice system.

    1. The Politicization of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division One of Bondi’s first acts was to issue a directive fundamentally shifting the mission of the Civil Rights Division. Rather than protecting minority groups and voters from suppression, she reoriented the division to focus on what she termed “reverse discrimination” and “religious liberty” cases targeting LGBTQ+ protections. By effectively halting investigations into police brutality and voter suppression in key states, she stripped the DOJ of its role as a shield for the marginalized, turning it into a sword for conservative culture wars.

    2. Halting Federal Prosecutions of Election Interference In a move that alarmed election law experts, Bondi ordered a freeze on all federal indictments related to attempts to overturn local election results, provided the defendants were “patriots acting in good faith.” This vague standard effectively granted immunity to operatives who intimidated election workers or submitted false slates of electors in 2024. By refusing to enforce federal election laws, she has signaled that political violence and subversion will go unpunished if it serves the right agenda, inviting chaos into future elections.

    3. The “Federal Sentencing Equality” Directive Bondi rescinded the Obama-era guidance that recommended prosecutors avoid mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses. Under her new “Sentencing Equality” directive, federal prosecutors are ordered to seek the maximum possible penalties regardless of context. This has resulted in a surge of the federal prison population and reversed years of bipartisan progress on criminal justice reform. Critics argue this policy is designed to feed the private prison lobby rather than reduce crime, disproportionately harming minority communities.

    4. Weaponizing the Bureau of Political Investigations Perhaps the most chilling development was Bondi’s restructuring of the FBI’s investigative priorities. She established a new “Public Corruption Task Force” that specifically targeted journalists, non-profit organizations, and universities that criticized the administration. By using the FBI to harass political opponents under the guise of “national security,” Bondi has blurred the line between the White House and the independent judiciary, turning the nation’s premier law enforcement agency into a tool of intimidation.

    5. The “Total Transparency” Ban on Police Misconduct Data Finally, in a move of bureaucratic cruelty, Bondi dissolved the National Use-of-Force Database. She argued that compiling data on police shootings was “demoralizing to law enforcement.” By removing the requirement for federal agencies to report use-of-force statistics, she has blinded the public and Congress to patterns of abuse. Without data, accountability is impossible, ensuring that systemic police violence remains hidden from public scrutiny.

    Conclusion In just one year, Pam Bondi has proven that the Attorney General does not merely enforce the law; they define the nation’s moral compass. By prioritizing political loyalty over legal neutrality, she has dismantled the institutional trust that underpins the American justice system. Repairing this damage will take years, but the cost of 2025 will be felt for a generation.

  • The Kennedy Legacy vs. American Wellness: The Five Worst Health Decisions of 2025

    Blue Press Journal’s Year End Review of the Trump Administration

    It was billed as a revolution. With Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services, a vocal contingent of Americans hoped for a return to “natural health” and a dismantling of the so-called “administrative state.” The promise was to “Make America Healthy Again.”

    However, as the calendar turns on a turbulent 2025, the revolution looks less like a renaissance and more like a regression. Under Secretary Kennedy’s unorthodox leadership, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has pursued an aggressive agenda that prioritizes ideology over epidemiology and conspiracy over clinical science. The result? A series of policy decisions that have actively eroded the foundations of public health in the United States.

    Here are the five most damaging health policy decisions of 2025 that have left American families less safe and less protected.

    1. The “Clean Water” Executive Order & Fluoridation Ban In his first month, Kennedy delivered on his most controversial campaign promise: ordering the removal of fluoride from all public water systems nationwide. Citing debunked studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ, the Secretary ignored decades of data from the CDC and the World Health Organization proving that water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay. The immediate consequence is a sharp projected rise in dental health issues, disproportionately affecting low-income families who lack easy access to dental care.

    2. The Withdrawal of Support for mRNA Technology Perhaps the most scientifically regressive move of the year was Kennedy’s directive to the NIH to freeze all funding for research into mRNA vaccine technology. By politicizing a delivery mechanism that saved millions of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Secretary has halted promising research into personalized cancer vaccines and next-generation flu shots. This decision signals to the scientific community that the U.S. government is no longer a reliable partner in cutting-edge medical innovation.

    3. The Purging of the CDC Advisory Committee In a move that stunned the medical community, Kennedy utilized emergency provisions to replace the entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). He replaced seasoned epidemiologists and pediatricians with hand-picked “health freedom” advocates, including several prominent critics of standard vaccine schedules. The effect was immediate: the committee’s recommendation for the annual flu shot was delayed by months and wrapped in uncertainty, leading to confusion among doctors and a likely decrease in vaccination rates this winter.

    4. The “Vaccine Injury Compensation” Overhaul The Secretary championed legislation that dramatically expanded the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). While framed as “protecting the injured,” the legislation was drafted with broad language that allows individuals to sue vaccine manufacturers for adverse effects that have been repeatedly disproven by science. This legal loophole effectively undermines the liability protections that allow vaccines to be manufactured at scale, threatening to drive prices up or drive manufacturers out of the market entirely.

    5. The “Raw Milk” Deregulation Initiative Promoting a fringe dietary trend as federal policy, Kennedy’s HHS oversaw the rollback of safety regulations regarding the sale of raw (unpasteurized) milk and eggs across state lines. Public health officials have warned that this move ignores the very real dangers of pathogens like E. coli and Salmonella. By framing this as a matter of “consumer choice” rather than food safety, the department has invited a potential public health crisis via foodborne illness outbreaks.

    The Verdict A year ago, the promise was health. Today, the reality is confusion, higher risks of preventable disease, and a government apparatus that actively distrusts the scientists it employs. For an administration tasked with protecting the nation’s health, 2025 has been a year of unforced errors that may take decades to correct.

  • The Art of the Denial: Trump’s Five Most Startling Environmental Claims of 2025

    Blue Press Journal – It is often said that a leopard doesn’t change its spots. In 2025, we’ve learned that a former president doesn’t change his rhetoric, either. After years of dismissing the climate crisis as a “hoax,” Donald Trump has returned to the forefront of politics with a renewed and aggressive assault on environmental science. This year, however, his claims have evolved from mere skepticism into a category of their own: spectacularly detached from reality. In a year littered with dubious assertions, five stand out as the most startling.

    First was the infamous “beautiful coal” speech, where he claimed a single, modern coal plant could power the entire Eastern Seaboard with “zero emissions.” This is not just an exaggeration; it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of both physics and basic economics. Second, he asserted that rising sea levels were a net positive, creating “tremendous amounts of new beachfront property,” callously ignoring the millions of people and trillions of dollars in infrastructure threatened by coastal erosion.

    The third startling claim was his declaration that modern wind turbines are the primary cause of whale beachings along the Atlantic coast, a theory so baseless it was immediately debunked by marine biologists. Fourth came his promise to bring back banned, lead-based paints for being “more durable and patriotic,” a proposal that is not only dangerous but represents a shocking desire to reverse decades of public health progress.

    Finally, perhaps the most audacious lie of the year was his assertion that he could lower the global temperature “by two degrees, maybe three,” simply by “unleashing American energy.” This reduces the complex, planetary crisis to the level of a magic trick, an insult to the intelligence of every voter.

    These aren’t just political gaffes; they are a concerted effort to muddy the waters and dismantle progress. As we move forward, it is critical to see these statements for what they are: a dangerous fantasy that threatens to derail meaningful action on the most pressing issue of our time.

  • Bad News for Trump: DOJ’s “Vindictive” Pursuit of Kilmar Ábrego García Exposes a Broken Administration

    The latest cascade of documents released by Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. has turned another spotlight on the Trump administration’s flagrant disregard for the rule of law. A trove of roughly 3,000 internal files—of which a “few dozen” were handed over to the defense of Kilmar Ábrego García—reveals that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office deliberately elevated Ábrego’s case to a “top priority” after a Supreme Court order forced the government’s hand. The timing, tone, and sheer obstinacy of the Justice Department’s actions paint a picture of vindictive prosecution that should alarm anyone who cares about a fair and impartial legal system.

    Ábrego, a low‑level immigrant mistakenly deported in March 2025, had no pending criminal case when a routine traffic stop on November 30, 2022, was logged. After three years of inaction from the DOJ, on April 1, 2025—shortly after the Supreme Court ordered his return—the Justice Department abruptly closed his arrest file and initiated a prosecution campaign seemingly driven by political retribution.

    The documents make clear that Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s office was the conduit for an explicit directive to Tennessee U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire: “targeting Kilmar Ábrego García was a top priority.” Blanche himself later confirmed to Fox News that the push came after a Maryland judge accused the government of “doing something wrong,” effectively admitting that the prosecution was a reactionary, punitive move rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

    The Supreme Court’s order, which was ignored for more than two months, demonstrates the administration’s contempt for judicial authority. In a system supposedly built on checks and balances, a president’s cabinet cannot simply trounce a high court’s mandate and then claim ignorance. The delay was not a bureaucratic hiccup; it was a calculated gamble that the political consequences of defying the Court would be minimal—a gamble that failed spectacularly.

    What makes this case troubling is the broader pattern it reflects. Throughout Trump’s tenure, the Justice Department was weaponized to settle scores, targeting political opponents and silencing dissent. The Ábrego saga exemplifies this: a vulnerable immigrant, an ordinary traffic stop, and a sudden, high-profile prosecution following pressure on the administration.

    The vindictive nature of this case hinges on timing, as legal scholars like Parloff have noted. No evidence suggests that Ábrego posed any danger or that his conduct warranted a federal indictment. Instead, the prosecution appears to be a punitive response to a judicial rebuke—exactly the kind of abuse of power the Constitution seeks to prevent.

  • Backlash Grows Over Alleged Renaming of the Kennedy Center 

    Blue Press Journal – Reports of a potential renaming of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts have sparked strong pushback from lawmakers and the Kennedy family. 

    Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), who previously served on the Kennedy Center’s board of trustees, has filed suit against the Trump administration over the move, arguing that it violates the center’s founding legislation. Beatty contends that the name is protected under federal law, and that any change would undermine the institution’s historical and cultural significance. 

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) echoed those concerns, calling the name change “illegal” and warning that the law requires congressional approval for any alteration. 

    The Kennedy family has also publicly condemned the proposal, pointing to the center’s role as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy and a symbol of the nation’s commitment to the arts. Created by an act of Congress in 1958 and officially named for Kennedy in 1964, the center has long been a focal point of Washington’s cultural life. 

    Under the Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. § 76h), Congress retains authority over the institution’s name, structure, and mission. Legal experts note that any unilateral executive action to rename the center would likely face significant constitutional and statutory challenges. 

    With litigation pending and political opposition mounting, the future of the Kennedy Center’s name will likely be decided in the courts — or in Congress.