Blue Press Journal – The state of Illinois has filed a lawsuit to prevent President Donald Trump from deploying hundreds of federalized National Guard troops to the streets of Chicago. The lawsuit, filed on Monday, comes on the heels of a federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocking Trump’s administration from sending National Guard troops to police Portland.
The Trump administration’s decision to federalize up to 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, despite objections from Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker, has been met with fierce resistance from state officials. The administration also plans to deploy an additional 400 troops from Texas to Chicago, sparking concerns about the potential for civil unrest and the erosion of local control.
This move reflects Trump’s pattern of deploying National Guard troops to cities like Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. He has promised to send troops to more cities, including Portland, despite local objections. This approach has faced criticism as an overreach of federal power and a threat to civil liberties.
The lawsuit filed by Illinois argues that the Trump administration’s actions are unconstitutional and violate the state’s sovereignty. Governor Pritzker has been vocal in his opposition to the deployment, stating that it is unnecessary and could lead to further instability in the city.
The situation in Chicago is tense, with protests against police brutality and systemic racism. The deployment of National Guard troops could escalate conflict. By filing this lawsuit, Illinois is taking a crucial step to protect its citizens’ rights and safety against Trump’s authoritarian tendencies.
Blue Press Journal – In a significant blow to the Trump administration, a federal judge in Oregon has temporarily blocked the deployment of the National Guard in Portland. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut on Saturday, comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the state and city of Portland.
Immergut’s order argues that the relatively small protests in the city do not justify the use of federalized forces, and that allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty. The judge emphasized that the country has a “longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs.”
The protests in question have been centered around the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland, with typically only a couple dozen people in attendance. The Portland Police Bureau has stated that it does not participate in immigration enforcement and only intervenes in the protests if there is vandalism or criminal activity.
Immergut’s ruling criticizes the Trump administration’s decision to deploy the National Guard, stating that it was “untethered to the facts.” The judge’s order is a significant rebuke to the administration’s efforts to crack down on protests and assert federal authority.
The deployment of the National Guard was announced on September 28, and was met with widespread criticism from local officials and residents. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands of people to downtown Portland, with no arrests reported. In contrast, the Portland Police Bureau arrested two people on assault charges during a smaller protest later that evening.
A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that many of the federal officers deployed to Portland lacked the necessary training and equipment for the mission. This raises serious questions about the administration’s preparedness and competence in handling such situations.
Immergut’s ruling is a victory for the people of Portland and a testament to the importance of checks on executive power. As the judge so eloquently put it, “this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” The Trump administration would do well to heed this warning and respect the rights and sovereignty of the states and their citizens.
Blue Press Journal – President Trump and his allies continue to tout a “mandate” for his far-right policies. But a closer examination of the election results and recent polling data reveals a different story. Despite winning the popular vote by a slim 1.5 percent margin, Trump’s claims of a sweeping mandate are baseless.
Polling Agency
Approval Rating
Leger
38%
YouGov
40%
Pew Research Center
40%
Marist College
41%
These weak approval ratings, averaging around 40 percent, are a far cry from the overwhelming support Trump claims to have. As Senator Bernie Sanders noted, “When you win an election by 1.5 percent, that’s not a mandate. That’s a narrow victory.” Moreover, the policies Trump is pushing, such as firing federal workers, deploying the military to cities, and slashing funding for medical research, are not supported by a majority of Americans.
In fact, a recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 60 percent of Americans oppose reducing funding for medical research, while 55 percent oppose deploying the military to cities to address protests. These numbers suggest that Trump’s policies are out of touch with the values and priorities of the American people.
As Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pointed out, “The idea that Trump has a mandate to push through these extreme policies is a myth. The American people did not give him a blank check to pursue his agenda.” Instead, the election results and polling data suggest that Americans are looking for bipartisan solutions and pragmatic leadership, not divisive rhetoric and radical policy shifts.
The notion of a Trump mandate is a myth that needs debunking; the numbers do not support claims of broad endorsement for his policies. We must prioritize democracy, inclusivity, and pragmatism over a partisan agenda. As Barack Obama said, “We are the change that we seek.” It’s time for Americans to unite for a more equitable future for all.
Blue Press Journal (DC) – As the government shutdown enters its latest phase, President Donald Trump’s lack of engagement has sparked widespread criticism from lawmakers and federal workers. Despite the growing concerns, Trump has been largely absent from the public eye, opting instead to communicate through juvenile internet memes and tweets.
The President’s absence has led to speculation about his health, with some noting the unusual makeup on his hands, potentially indicating an IV or other medical treatment. This has only added to the concerns about his ability to lead the country during this critical time.
Since the Monday meeting with Democratic leaders, requested by Jeffries and Schumer, Trump has made no effort to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans to end the impasse. In fact, his actions have been described as “unhinged and unserious” by Representative Jeffries, who told NBC News, “Donald Trump is in the presidential witness protection program. No one can find him when it comes to the government shutdown issue because he knows he’s responsible for having caused it.”
Trump’s allies have attempted to shift the blame to Democrats, falsely claiming that they shut down the government to provide healthcare to migrants in the country illegally. However, this narrative has been widely debunked.
The President’s lack of engagement is a stark contrast to the efforts of previous presidents, who have worked tirelessly to end or avert government shutdowns. Trump’s absence has only exacerbated the situation, leaving federal workers and Americans to suffer the consequences of his inaction.
As the shutdown continues, it remains to be seen if Trump will take a more active role in resolving the crisis. Until then, his silence will fuel criticism about his ability to govern effectively.
Blue Press Journal – The Trump administration is planning to use the government shutdown as an opportunity to fire thousands of federal workers, a move that would have far-reaching and devastating consequences. According to reports, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has encouraged agencies to view the shutdown as a chance to eliminate positions that do not align with the administration’s values.
This plan has sparked outrage and a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents federal workers. The union argues that the administration’s actions would punish and further traumatize federal employees. The lawsuit, supported by other democracy groups and unions, highlights the administration’s attempt to exploit the shutdown to drastically shrink the federal workforce.
The Trump administration has made no secret of its intention to slash programs and departments that it deems unnecessary. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the administration would target agencies that do not align with its values, which it believes are a waste of taxpayer dollars. This move would not only harm federal workers but also undermine the critical services they provide to the American people.
The plan to fire thousands of federal workers is part of the administration’s broader agenda, as outlined in Project 2025, a nearly 1,000-page memo authored in part by OMB Director Russell Vought. The memo advocates for significant reductions in the federal workforce, which would have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities that rely on government services.
Democrats have expressed strong opposition to the administration’s plan, with Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) stating that the Trump administration is “weaponizing a temporary government shutdown” to permanently fire nonpartisan, expert employees. The administration’s actions would not only harm federal workers but also undermine the integrity of the federal government and its ability to serve the American people.
As the shutdown continues, it is essential to recognize the consequences of the Trump administration’s plan. Firing thousands of federal workers would plunge the government into uncharted legal territory, lacking a federal statutory framework. Such actions would also impact the federal workforce, undermining the trust and stability crucial for effective governance.
This plan has sparked outrage and a lawsuit from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), representing federal workers. The union contends that the administration’s actions would punish and further traumatize employees. The lawsuit, filed alongside other democracy groups and unions, emphasizes the administration’s effort to use the shutdown to reduce the federal workforce.
The plan to fire thousands of federal workers is part of the administration’s broader agenda, as outlined in Project 2025, a nearly 1,000-page memo authored in part by OMB Director Russell Vought. The memo advocates for significant reductions in the federal workforce, which would have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities that rely on government services.
Democrats oppose the administration’s plan, with Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) stating that the Trump administration is “weaponizing a temporary government shutdown” to fire expert employees. This would harm federal workers and undermine the integrity of the government.
As the shutdown continues, it is essential to recognize the consequences of the Trump administration’s plan. Firing thousands of federal workers would throw the government into uncharted legal territory, lacking a supportive statutory framework. These actions would also impact the federal workforce, undermining trust and stability crucial for effective governance.
Blue Press Journal (DC) – The Trump administration is facing intense criticism for allegedly violating the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities. The law, enacted in 1939, aims to prevent government workforces from becoming partisan clubhouses. However, according to experts, the Trump administration is pushing the boundaries of the law with reckless abandon.
Republicans have been twisting the narrative around the government shutdown, claiming that Democrats are responsible for the closure because they want to provide free healthcare to undocumented immigrants, is totally false. This assertion has been plastered on official government websites, despite federal law already prohibiting unauthorized immigrants from accessing healthcare through programs like the Affordable Care Act.
“It seems the Trump administration is making an attempt to get as close to the line of running afoul of the Hatch Act and other ethical laws without actually stepping over it,” said Joe Spielberger, senior policy counsel at the Project on Government Oversight. Greg Holman, a government ethics expert with Public Citizen, concurred, stating that “the Trump administration is violating the Hatch Act with reckless abandon — using taxpayer dollars to plaster partisan screeds on every government webpage they can get their hands on.”
Public Citizen has filed seven Hatch Act complaints against the administration for “explicitly partisan messaging” on various government websites, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Justice, and the White House. The group is urging the law to be enforced, arguing that the administration’s actions are a clear violation of the Hatch Act.
The complaints are not limited to these seven agencies, as similar complaints were already filed against the Small Business Administration and the Department of Housing and Human Services. The blatant disregard for the law has sparked outrage among ethics experts, who warn that if left unchecked, the administration’s behavior could have far-reaching consequences for the integrity of the government.
As the government shutdown continues, the Trump administration’s actions face scrutiny. The violation of the Hatch Act is among concerns raised by ethics experts demanding accountability and impartial government service. With complaints filed, it remains to be seen how the administration will respond and if the law will be enforced to curb partisan antics.
Blue Press Journal – A tense and public confrontation erupted on Capitol Hill Wednesday as Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) directly challenged House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) over President Trump’s recent inflammatory remarks to military leaders, demanding the GOP leader address the president’s stability.
Johnson, dismissing the charge, quickly fired back, “A lot of folks on your side are, too.”
The confrontation stemmed from comments the president made during an address to generals in Quantico, Va., where he suggested that Democratic-led cities be used as “training grounds” for the military. Dean pressed Johnson on the severity of such rhetoric. “That is so dangerous,” she insisted.
Citing her experience on the House Foreign Affairs and Appropriations committees, Dean warned that the president’s erratic behavior was having tangible effects on U.S. foreign policy and national security. “This is a collision of those two things,” she explained. “Our allies are looking elsewhere. Our enemies are laughing.”
Dean’s alarm was shared by other high-ranking officials. Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, decried the Quantico event as an “expensive, dangerous dereliction of leadership by the Trump administration.”
In a statement, Reed criticized the politicization of the military gathering. “While American forces confront real threats across the globe, Mr. Hegseth and President Trump chose to pull generals and admirals away from their missions to listen to hours of political grievances,” he said.
The president’s speech was described by attendees as troubling, depicting a commander-in-chief who sounded “incoherent, exhausted, rabidly partisan, stupid, and meandering.” In this context, Trump’s proposal to use American cities for military drills raised serious concerns among Democrats about his judgment and fitness for office.
Blue Press Journal – In a high-stakes game of political brinksmanship, the Democratic Party is refusing to back down from its insistence that withholding their votes from a continuing resolution in the Senate can pressure Republicans into extending Obamacare subsidies. With health care costs for millions of Americans set to spike if the subsidies are not restored, Democrats believe they have a strong hand to play in the ongoing budget negotiations.
The Democratic ask is straightforward: extend the Obamacare subsidies that were taken out of the budget by the BBB Bill, or face the consequences of a government shutdown. As Jesse Ferguson, a veteran Democratic strategist, put it, “Republicans have backed themselves into a corner where they demand to end tax credits for health insurance costs or else they’re shutting down the government. People won’t buy it. Their ransom note reads: ‘Higher bills or closed doors — pick one.’”
The stakes are high, with the Kaiser Family Foundation estimating that out-of-pocket costs for Obamacare enrollees could increase by as much as 114% if the subsidies are not extended. This would have a devastating impact on millions of Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health care needs, many in red states. Democrats are counting on the pressure growing on Republicans as notices about premium hikes hit constituents’ inboxes, making it increasingly difficult for the GOP to maintain its hardline stance.
However, despite the Democratic Party’s confidence in its strategy, there are concerns that the law may not effectively prevent the Trump administration from enacting subsidy cuts. The administration has a history of ignoring legal norms, and the conservative U.S. Supreme Court often supports its actions. As one Democratic aide noted, “We don’t believe the law is meaningfully holding back Vought or Trump from enacting cuts. So, what has been stopping Vought before? Politics.”
This is crucial, as it suggests that the Democratic strategy involves not just the law but the politics at play. By withholding their votes on the resolution, Democrats aim to create urgency that will push Republicans to rethink their stance. They also seek to highlight the human impact of the GOP’s position, portraying it as callous and disconnected from everyday Americans’ needs.
The early polling on a shutdown supports the Democratic reading of the situation. The NPR/PBS/Marist Poll found that 38% of Americans would blame Republicans for a shutdown, while 27% would blame Democrats, and 31% would blame both parties equally. A late September survey from Blueprint, a Democratic group, found an even bigger advantage for Democrats, with 50% of registered voters blaming Republicans and 34% blaming Democrats.
These numbers suggest that the Democratic strategy is about winning public opinion, not just legislative victories. By framing the issue as a choice between higher health care costs and a government shutdown, Democrats aim to create moral urgency that resonates with voters. As Ferguson noted, “People won’t buy the Republican argument that they’re shutting down the government over a matter of principle. They’ll see it for what it is: a cynical attempt to hurt millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet.”
The Democratic insistence on withholding their votes from the continuing resolution may be seen as a brave and necessary step to protect the well-being of millions of Americans from high insurance costs. By standing firm and refusing to back down, Democrats are sending a clear message that they will not be intimidated or swayed by Republican tactics. They are also highlighting the human impact of the Republican stance, and making the case that the GOP is out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans.
As the deadline for a government shutdown approaches, the Democratic Party is fully committed to protecting the health care needs of millions of Americans. Whether this strategy will succeed is uncertain, but the budget battle and the future of Obamacare will be a defining moment in American politics with significant consequences for the country.
Blue Press Journal – On Tuesday, President Donald Trump addressed a gathering of hundreds of senior U.S. military officials in Virginia, speaking for over an hour on a range of topics. However, what was intended to be a straightforward address to the nation’s top brass has raised more questions than answers. Critics have described the President’s delivery as “quieter and more confused” than usual, leaving many to wonder if something is amiss with the Commander-in-Chief.
During his speech, Trump touched on familiar themes, including his decision to rename the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America,” his strike on Iran, and criticisms of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. While these topics are not unusual for Trump to discuss at length, the context of the remarks being given to top military officials is what makes this address so concerning.
The President’s meandering speech, coupled with his uncharacteristically subdued tone, has sparked fears that America’s military preparedness may be jeopardized. The nation’s top military officials, who are responsible for making life-or-death decisions, may be left questioning the President’s ability to provide clear and coherent leadership.
This is not a trivial matter. As historian and national security expert John Nichols noted, the issue of a President’s sanity and ability to make rational decisions is a critical one. In 1973, an Air Force nuclear-missile officer named Harold Hering posed a simple yet profound question during a training session: “How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?” Trump’s rambling, out-of-focus speech may have inadvertently answered that question for the nation’s military leaders, and the implications are chilling.
As the world faces complex security challenges, the United States needs a Commander-in-Chief who can provide confident leadership. The military officials protecting American interests deserve this. It is crucial that the President’s behavior and decision-making are scrutinized to ensure military preparedness and security are upheld.
Blue Press Journal – In a reckless display of Republican partisan politics, the federal government has shut down, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers without pay and millions of Americans facing uncertainty over their health insurance. The shutdown, which began in the early hours of Wednesday, is a direct result of a bitter standoff between Republicans and Democrats over measures to protect health insurance for millions of Americans.
At the heart of the dispute is the refusal by Republicans to extend enhanced subsidies for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. These tax credits, passed during the COVID-19 pandemic, are set to expire at year-end, leading to skyrocketing premiums for millions of Americans. Democrats believe they have the upper hand, as the consequences of inaction will affect many.
They tax credits for insurance were cut out of the budget by Republicans to afford huge tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires.
The shutdown highlights the dysfunction in Washington. While Democrats fight for basics like healthcare access, Republicans seem focused on political gains. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stated, “The American people are learning how bad this health care crisis is, and they will put tremendous heat on Republicans to solve it.” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) remarked, “Democrats are ready to fight for your family’s needs, unlike House Republicans who are on vacation.”
The shutdown will have far-reaching consequences, with federal agencies and operations grinding to a halt. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers will be forced to stay home without pay, while others, including active-duty troops, will have to work without compensation. The economic impact will be significant, and the human cost will be even higher.
Democrats are fighting for a basic principle: that every American deserves access to quality healthcare. It’s time for Republicans to put aside their partisan games and work towards a solution. The American people deserve better.
Blue Press Journal 