Blue Press Journal

Tag: donald-trump

  • Explosive ProPublica Report Ties Sen. Susan Collins to Alleged Pay-to-Play Scandal in Maine Senate Race

    A new ProPublica report details a potentially explosive source of controversy in the re-election bid of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) , shifting Democratic criticism of the senator away from her legislative voting record and towards allegations of significant political corruption.

    The report follows up on an investigative trail beginning with Martin Kao, the former CEO of defense contractor Navatek, a Hawaii-based company. At the time of the 2022 campaign finance indictment, Kao was cooperating with federal authorities and met with Scott Reed, who headed a super PAC that had been associated with Collins. Kao allegedly offered to provide a $500,000 donation to the super PAC, which would have circumvented contributions from government contractors to get around bans on donations from government contractors in order to secure dozens of millions of federal naval contracts for Navatek. Reed supposedly assured Kao that the senator would be aware of where the money came from, and internal emails later suggested that Collins was committed to obtaining $32 million in contracts.

    FBI agents had investigated the possibility of a bribery investigation connected to these allegations, but the probe died out after the new election cycle began, and federal law enforcement purges, particularly those orchestrated by the Trump administration, that undermined public corruption investigations. An FBI spokesperson said that the bureau ultimately found nothing implicating Collins or her campaign.

    Collins’ office and campaign have strongly rebutted the allegations, describing Kao’s statements as “outlandish” and noting that the campaign was never a target of FBI investigation, cooperating fully with authorities.

    Despite these denials, the report threatens to derail the final weeks of the Maine Senate race, with Collins’ Democratic rival, Troy Jackson, quickly capitalizing on the story, claiming the allegations represented “corruption of the highest order” and calling for full transparency, which is sure to be a major issue for voters ahead of election day.

  • Trump’s Iran‑War Folly and the GOP’s Midterm Maneuvering: Why Voters Should Avoid the Party of Big Oil

    by Winston Wendell

    President Donald Trump has intensified economic pressure on Iran with new sanctions and blockades, claiming it will strengthen the United States. Instead, record diesel prices are fueling backlash from farm and energy interests, pushing Republican lawmakers from rural states to consider a diesel export ban that cuts against his own policy.

    Mr. Trump’s war with Iran has reduced Iranian oil exports and triggered a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, creating a shortage in European and Asian markets. With diesel demand still high, prices have hit record levels, hammering the agricultural sector and driving up the cost of goods and services. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, Republicans risk losing farm voters who blame the President and his party for surging inflation.

    Many Republicans in Congress refuse to budge because they rely on big oil money from companies like Exxon and Chevron, which profit when diesel prices soar. Their lobbying power drowns out farmers who are being squeezed by high fuel costs. This GOP loyalty to oil giants over rural voters exposes a blatant hypocrisy that could cost them crucial farm‑state electoral support.

    Critics say the President’s Iran policy is less about security and more about staging a confrontation with Tehran to distract voters. They argue his hardline moves have failed to explain to voters why Iran was a looming threat, but a political tactic to distract from stubbornly high prices for everyday goods and services because of this tariffs.

    For farmers and American’s, it means that prices of commodities and services are about to rise again. The President’s and Republican’s current course of action will be detrimental for the country, we need change!

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Betrayal in the Heartland: How Trump’s Policies Are Crushing the Farmers Who Voted for Him

    Tariffs, escalating conflicts, and soaring closures reveal a painful economic reality for American agriculture.

    by Winston Wendell

    In the 2024 presidential election, farmers in America voted overwheming for Donald Trump, betting that the president would stand by their interests. However, an objective review of Trump’s activity as a president demonstrates that his policies have diverged significantly from the interests of the rural population. The president’s support for free trade undermined the position of farmers, resulting in substantial losses.

    President Harry S. Truman signing a document at his desk

    His foreign policy, which started a war against Iran, contributed to the current panic in the world markets. Causing oil to skyrocket. The Trump administration has pursued a policy of imposing high tariffs on imports, which have led to the loss of foreign markets for many farmers. Clearly the president’s policies do not support farmers’. For example, family-owned farms are disappearing as enterprises with vast resources swallow up small players or they just go bankrupt.

    Trump’s high tariffs resulted in billions of dollars in payments to farmers by the Treasury Department from our tax dollars increasing the national debt. His foreign policy has also affected agricultural production in the country, as Canada is a leading producer of fertilizers in north America have now been tariffed.

    In the 1948 presidential race, Harry S. Truman warned voters not to back populist candidates in the West.

    Truman warned farmers that Republicans are trying to “put a pitchfork in the farmer’s back.” The presidential candidate emphasized that he would fight to protect the integrity of free enterprise against monopolies and tariffs. Thus, Trump’s actions in the direction of protectionism and provocative foreign policy destroyed the positions of farmers, family-owned farms in particular.

    Farmers who voted for Trump in the hope of improving the situation in the their lives were clearly deceived by Donald Trump, and it is clear that they have not learned the lesson of history.

  • Whistleblower Alleges DHS Violated State Laws in Rushed Pre-Midterm Voter Roll Investigation

    A new DHS whistleblower report reveals federal investigators may have broken state laws by impersonating voters to scan state rolls ahead of the midterms.

    A newly released whistleblower report has raised serious legal and ethical concerns regarding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its handling of state voter rolls ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. 

    According to the report—first uncovered by The New York Times and brought to light by lawmakers Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.)—the DHS launched a rushed initiative known as the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” on August 21. The program tasks investigators with reviewing massive volumes of voter registration data to identify alleged non-citizen voters, working under an aggressive quota of five cases per hour.

    How the Alleged Violations Occurred

    Legal experts and the whistleblower point to critical vulnerabilities in the operation:

    • Impersonation Risks: Investigators allegedly accessed restricted state voter databases by using internal Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to make false attestations, potentially violating state laws that permit only registered voters to access their specific data.
    • Flawed Data and Rushed Timelines: Under immense pressure to review records in just 12 minutes, agents are relying on faulty data matching methods. Historically, these methods have a high rate of false positives, frequently mislabeling eligible U.S. citizens as non-citizens.
    • Threat of Disenfranchisement: With the midterms just 50 days away, watchdogs warn that thousands of legitimate U.S. citizens could be flagged in federal databases, risking wrongful criminal investigations, travel restrictions at ports of entry, and voter intimidation.

    Congressional Response and DHS Defense

    Lawmakers have taken swift action. Sen. Padilla and Sen. Schumer formally wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding an immediate halt to the initiative. At a press conference, Padilla denounced the operation, stating, “You cannot break the law when you say you’re trying to enforce the law.”

    Meanwhile, a DHS spokesperson dismissed the whistleblower complaint as a media fabrication, defending the agency’s broader efforts to secure American elections. 

    Why This Matters

    As legal challenges continue to mount around federal access to state voter databases and election integrity measures, this whistleblower report places a spotlight on the intersection of federal immigration enforcement and domestic voting rights.

  • Sweeping 2030 US Census Changes Proposed by Trump Administration Spark Outrage and Legal Warning

    by Winston Wendell

    When I first read about the changes to the 2030 census proposed by the Trump administration, I knew it would make national headlines and turn into a political scandal. The provisions under consideration would exclude millions of people from being counted, change the funding formula, and favor redistricting that benefits Republicans.

    Census representative helping resident complete a questionnaire at home

    I want to discuss what the changes mean and explain why they have caused such a stir in Washington, DC.

    The Substance of the 2030 Census Changes

    The provisions that the Trump administration wants to see in the 2030 census report are of a radical nature. Here are some key changes that the government wants to make:

    • Redefining “usual residence” as the place of “primary physical presence” during the year of the census. The administration would use income-tax filings and W-2 tax forms to determine a person’s “primary physical presence”
    • Excluding undocumented immigrants and legal residents who do not have residency on April 1, 2030, from the count. The 2020 census count included all foreigners, legal and illegal. The reasoning behind this provision is that it is an unconstitutional interpretation of “whole number of persons”
    • Removing questions on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. The rationale is that it is outside the constitutional powers of the federal government to collect this information.

    To justify excluding non-citizens from the count, the administration has interpreted “whole number of persons” to mean “inhabitants” that have a “qualified” relationship with the political system. It is worth noting that many of these policies have been advocated by President Trump and the Heritage Foundation in Project 2025, a document outlining policies that a Republican administration would implement through executive orders.

    Reaction to the Trump Census Proposal

    Not surprisingly, the proposals have been met with derision and outright condemnation from Democrats and civil libertarians.

    The argument that only “qualified” persons should be counted is an assault on the equal sovereignty of every American citizen that goes against the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

    Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, called the proposals “a radical revision of the US Census” and said that she was considering taking legal action to block the changes because of their “unpatriotic” nature.

    In the past, Ms. James has successfully sued to block similar changes to the census, and she will undoubtedly take similar actions in the future. Ms. James stated, “The Constitution says what the Constitution says. Every person who is present in the United States should be counted, period,”

    Mr. Roberts of the Center for American Progress reacted to the proposal by saying that it was “a blatant attack on our democracy and a means to gerrymander our way to victory at the expense of minorities and public policy.”

    Mr. Roberts added that he expected litigation to challenge the new changes and that the Court would eventually rule on whether the changes were constitutional or not.

    He concluded, “Congress is the only body that can decide if this change is appropriate or not. Nevertheless, the public will have thirty days to respond to the request for comments and express their opinions on the issue.”

  • The Great Tariff Loophole: How a Policy Meant to Help Working Americans Ended Up in Corporate Hands

    How Trump’s Illegal Trade Duties Transformed Into a Multibillion-Dollar Corporate Windfall

    by Winston Wendell

    When President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, he promised a new set of tariffs would fix the damage caused by his own 2017 tax cuts. He said regular folks wouldn’t notice the extra charges on imported goods, American manufacturers would see a boom, and those millions in profits that used to flow to the national elite would finally go away.

    Trucks queue beneath tariff signs at a Canada–U.S. customs checkpoint

    That’s not what happened. Instead, import duties turned into a backwards tax on the middle class, who got hit with higher prices as businesses passed the costs right along. And now, after a historic Supreme Court decision called these Trump’s tariffs illegal, billions in refunds are landing right in shareholders’ pockets.

    Tariff Refunds Go Right to Shareholders

    This giant shift of cash from regular middle class Americans to the wealthiest is all thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in February. The Court said Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for tariffs was illegal.

    So the government had to pay back the businesses that shelled out $166 billion in tariffs, half that money, the Court decided, should go straight to the firms who paid it.

    But are the companies who squeezed extra billions out of Americans actually planning to refund the people they overcharged?

    Big corporations say they won’t. Even after these firms got their government refund (plus interest), they’re just using the money to make shareholders richer and further pump up profits.

    Here’s how some companies are spending their “surprise” rebate:

    Nike: In summer 2025, Nike executives said they’d cover a $1 billion tariff cost by getting creative, including strategic $5 to $10 price hikes to consumers on US goods. Fast forward, and after scoring nearly $1 billion back, Nike execs called the cash an “unplanned benefit” to bump up their profits. Meanwhile, there’s now a class-action lawsuit accusing Nike of “double-dipping”: raising prices to cover tariffs, then pocketing the refund.

    Dollar Tree: The loss cost discount retailer landed $383 million in tariff refunds, but only set aside $22 million for price cuts as part of a “tariff reinvestment initiative.” The rest? It doesn’t even compare. Dollar Tree also announced a $605 million share buyback, a move to pad shareholders’ wallets, at 27 times the size of their consumer refund gesture.

    Steve Madden: The shoe company bragged about just raising prices and letting customers pay for the tariffs. Now, they’re sitting on a $92 million rebate and say they’ll use it to pay off company debt.

    Levi Strauss: After hiking prices to offset tariff costs, Levi’s got $80 million back. Execs said they’re not sure what to do with the cash. And like Nike, Levi Strauss faces a class-action lawsuit for not paying customers back.

    Walmart, Target, and Lowe’s: These giants all made vague promises about using the rebate to lower prices or to help “fund price leadership” in their industries. Concrete numbers? Still missing. Lowe’s even changed its tune, swapping “customer-facing actions” for promises of “strong profitability” for itself and its shareholders.

    The Truth About These Refunds

    One reason companies get away with this? It’s almost impossible to figure out how to break the rebate apart for each individual shopper, since those tariff costs were part of millions of everyday items’ prices.

    Still, the bigger problem is the federal government. If these tariffs had gone through proper approval, they would’ve just been another regressive tax on middle class Americans. But slapping them in as an executive order under the IEEPA set up this jackpot in the first place.

    So, the policy, in the end, was just another regressive tax on the poor and middle class. Like the tax cuts from 2017 and 2025, this is yet another “win” for everyone except for the workers and consumers who always end up paying the bill.

  • Retrograde Engineering: Why Trump’s Steam Catapult Order is a Bad Move for the Navy

    by Winston Wendell

    Now is not the time to be worrying about the technical specifications of catapults when America’s households are drowning in the rising costs of gasoline, food, and healthcare. Yet, that is exactly what former President Donald Trump seems to be doing as he wakes up from his delusionary stupor. In one of his latest nonsensical outbursts, Trump ordered the Pentagon to abandon future aircraft carrier catapults that utilize cutting-edge electromagnetic technology and revert back to the old steam-powered systems.

    President Trump’s order instructs the Navy to equip future carriers with old steam catapults instead of future electromagnetic aircraft launching systems.

    The president defended his decision by claiming that such a move would be better for the shipbuilding industry as it would allow them to use existing infrastructure to get contracts. However, military officials and senators have condemned the decision as ill-informed and short-sighted. Electromagnetic systems are undeniably better than their steam-powered predecessors in almost every regard.

    The consensus among critics of Trump’s order is that the new electromagnetic systems are far better than the old steam ones. Therefore, canceling their development and returning to the previous technology is a huge waste of resources.

    The cancellation of EMALS would lead to enormous financial losses for the Navy, contractors, and the US economy in general.

    The decision to cancel the EMALS program would lead to “wasteful spending” as there was already a $500 million investment in the development of electromagnetic catapults. It’s argued that the Pentagon does not even have the necessary infrastructure to produce the older catapults.

    A senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, noted that the president’s order creates “unimaginable complications.”

    Senators reacted furiously to the news of the president’s intentions. Senator Kelly served in the Navy and was a pilot during the Gulf War. He accused the former president of interfering with complex military matters that he does not understand.

    “I’ve launched off the front of aircraft carriers hundreds of times, have a Master’s degree in aeronautical engineering, and am a test pilot and even I wouldn’t suggest to the Navy how to engineer specific systems on its ships,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy pilot who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • Federal Appeals Court Halted Construction on Trump’s Ballroom Project

    Blue Press Journal

    WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court has paused construction on President Donald Trump’s budgeted 400 million-dollar project of the White House ballroom. The court ruled that building the ballroom should be immediately stopped from proceeding with any jobs “above ground”, including features the government claims are necessary security measures.

    Donald Trump speaking at a podium in the White House ballroom with an audience listening
    .

    On Friday, a 2-1 panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to uphold a preliminary injunction against the President. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, an organization that protects buildings, filed the injunction in December 2025 after the administration began demolition of the East Wing to make way for a 90,000 square foot subterranean ballroom not approved by Congress.

    Patricia Millett’s and Bradley Garcia’s opinions, in which they ruled in favor of preservation, were joined by judges who were appointed by President Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They stated that the Constitution does not permit presidential edicts to dictate the use of federal resources.

    They continued, “whether a large ballroom should be built…is a decision for Congress, not the President” due to the fact that the Constitution grants spending authority over the federal assets to lawmakers, not the executive branch, despite the security reasons cited by the administration.

    However, the decision to halt the work was only made official for two weeks in order to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Neomi Rao, who was nominated by President Trump, filed a dissenting opinion in response to the majority’s ruling. She stated that the injunction which stopped the work was an act of judicial activism.

    “By stepping in and taking control over something as monumental as the White House, the district court engaged in judicial activism,” she wrote. “Courts shouldn’t be running building projects”

    The administration’s original plan was to decommission the East Wing while keeping the West Wing as a separate unit. However, the White House Complex’s budget requires funding beyond the president’s official salary so the administration argued that the entire wing be demolished to make way for the expansion of the subterranean chamber.

    Furthermore, the administration claims that the ballroom project is part of larger security upgrades to the complex.

    President Trump expressed dissatisfaction with the decision in his Truth Social page. He stated that the ruling was “politically motivated and completely illegal.” He argued that not completing the ballroom project endangered future presidents, staff, diplomats, and the general public.

    The two-week pause in the construction of the ballroom project means that the future of the project depends on whether or not Trump’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is granted.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • The GAO Finds That DOGE Budget Reports Were Misleading

    NEWS REPORT by Winston Wendell

    According to a report released on Thursday, the Department of Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE, led by Elon Musk himself, was making up figures about the amount of money it was saving the country. The report was requested by Democratic senators Gary Peters of Michigan and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and was conducted by the Government Accountability Office.

    DOGE was found to have used “misleading practices” when it came to canceled leases and active government contracts. Additionally, the audit found that the department provided insufficient evidence for the methods used in 96 percent of the canceled grants.

    The Department of Government Efficiency was also found to have failed to follow their own formulas when it came to calculating figures for canceled leases and contracts, and in the cases where they did follow their formulas, they either missed out on the details or did not disclose them when they should have. When they did follow their own procedures, the Government Accountability Office found that they overlooked the complexities of government contracts, including liabilities and penalties that come with breaking a contract before the due date.

    “The report shows that the Trump administration’s cost-saving mission was conducted in a misleading fashion, achieving little apart from putting at risk taxpayer data and key programs,” said Senator Peters.

    “President Trump and his allies in the Senate and House have been using DOGE as a fig leaf to hide tax-cut giveaways to the wealthy and large corporations while pretending to save the deficit,” said Senator Blumenthal.

    Many people have responded to the report, including Jessica Tillipman, associate dean of the GWU School of Law, who specializes in government procurement. Tillipman cited several errors she found on the social media accounts of DOGE, one of which being a claim that the department had saved $28 million reduction in expenditures for an Air Force agreement, whereas the actual financial relief amounted to roughly $600,000 from a canceled lease. “That figure doesn’t account for the present value of future lease payments, which would reduce the supposed $3.7 million savings,” Tillipman said.

    “DOGE’s fiscal wins were mostly fictional,” write Reason editor-in-chief Eric Boehm, who covered the story for the libertarian magazine. “According to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, the Trump administration’s claims about savings from slashing federal spending were often based on faulty math.”

    “DOGE may soon start spending more taxpayer money, but at least the government watchdogs are forcing Musk’s agency to be more open about how it spends our money when it comes to cutting back federal services,” concluded Senator Blumenthal.

    Fediverse Reactions

  • The Art of the About-Face: A Critical Look at Lindsey Graham’s Political Evolution

    American politics doesn’t usually give you a transformation as sharp, or as revealing as Lindsey Graham’s. Watching him shift in Washington has become almost surreal. The man bends with the wind, sure, but the cost of that flexibility has been his integrity.

    Just look at his record. Over the years, Graham has mostly acted like his main goal is just to hang on to his seat. He went from bashing Trump at every turn to openly praising him. If you need a case study in plain old political opportunism, this is it.

    Remember the 2016 Republican primaries? Graham didn’t pull any punches. He called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.” He sounded like someone who actually believed what he was saying. Then, almost instantly, once Trump became the nominee, Graham dropped the act and threw in his lot with Trump. That wasn’t some sudden epiphany, it was survival mode, pure calculation.

    The shift was impossible to miss during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in 2018. After Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, the Senate was in chaos. Graham could have played the role of the rational adult in the room, but he didn’t. He went full throttle with a fiery defense of Kavanaugh, turning the hearings into political theater. In doing so, he shored up his spot in Trump’s camp, tossing aside the usual committee rules for a shot at the spotlight.

    Fast forward to 2020, and Graham’s credibility took another hit. After Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, the same man who’d argued in 2016 that Supreme Court picks should wait until after the election did an immediate about-face. He fast-tracked Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination, just weeks before voters went to the polls. It wasn’t just a flip-flop, it was proof that his stated principles didn’t mean much when power was at stake.

    So, when does a politician stop serving the public and start just playing the angles? With Graham, it was obvious: keeping his place at the table matters more than sticking to his beliefs. He changed course whenever it suited him, and yes, it’s helped him stay in power, but at the expense of his credibility.

    Graham’s story serves as a cautionary tale. When individuals abandon their convictions to maintain relevance, they risk losing the very respect that initially earned them admiration. Politicians who remain apolitical will eventually succumb to any political pressure. Moreover, if you support someone whose principles fluctuate with the political climate, what can you truly rely on during challenging times?

    In the wake of his passing, it is customary for Washington to offer a eulogy extolling his virtues. While he was undoubtedly a remarkable individual when collaborating with John McCain, it is imperative that we draw lessons from his tenure in office. Was his primary motivation the nation and the Constitution, or was it driven by political gain and the pursuit of power?