Blue Press Journal

Tag: trump

  • Trump’s False Narrative on a Social Security Problem that Didn’t Exist

    The core issue lies in Social Security’s decades-old computer systems, specifically COBOL, which lacks a standard date format. This led to placeholders like 1875 being used for individuals missing birth dates, often senior citizens from before reliable federal records.

    While this technical quirk was known, the claim of a widespread problem of payments to excessively old people is false. The Social Security Administration already terminates benefits at age 115, a policy in place since 2015. Furthermore, a 2023 Inspector General report found that most people whose records lacked birth dates were already deceased and purged. The IG recommended a simple data update: mark these records as deceased.

    Despite the reality – that there was no crisis of ultra-elderly receiving checks – President Trump boasted on social media about fixing a “major cleanup initiative.” His post claimed: “~12.3M individuals aged 120+ have now been marked as deceased.”

    Analysis shows this was not a confession of improper payments, but an announcement about marking records. This action appears to be the implementation of the IG’s suggested data cleanup for predominantly deceased individuals.

    Instead of fixing a real problem, Trump has effectively taken credit for a data management task and framed it as resolving a crisis that never existed. He has completely misrepresented the issue. This false narrative was then eagerly adopted by his supporters, who spread the claim that he stopped payments to people over 300 years old, turning a non-existent problem into a “fixed” achievement within their political sphere.

  • Ukraine’s Bold Moves Challenge Trump’s Narrative on Conflict

    A few months ago, Donald Trump confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, suggesting that Ukraine had no leverage in its conflict with Russia. Trump pressured Zelenskyy to grant the United States mineral rights in exchange for additional support, implying, “You’re not in a good position.”

    Now, fast forward to the present, and we see that Ukraine has made significant strides, with estimates indicating that 30% to 40% of Russia’s strategic bombing capabilities have been diminished due to a bold move by Ukrainian forces. This development marks a major setback for Russia.

    It is evident that the Trump narrative presented to Zelenskyy—that Ukraine lacked any bargaining power—was misguided. This brave attack demonstrates that Ukraine indeed has multiple strategic options at its disposal.

    Clearly, Trump fails to comprehend the situation and should reconsider his seemingly unwavering support for Russia, instead choosing to stand with Ukraine, a nation striving for democracy.

  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Impact on Vaccine Policy: Negative

    Once again, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is allowing his personal, unproven anti-vaccine views to influence medical policy within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He is creating new obstacles that will make it more difficult for people who want vaccinations to access them. 

    Recently, Kennedy bypassed the usual procedures to change recommendations regarding COVID-19 vaccinations. Additionally, he canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in pledged funding to Moderna, the mRNA vaccine developer, which was intended for developing, testing, and purchasing vaccines for pandemic influenza. Kennedy has been openly critical of mRNA vaccines, and HHS confirmed that the funding was withdrawn.

    Kennedy has a longstanding history of opposing vaccines. In 2021, he petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revoke the emergency use authorizations of COVID-19 vaccines and threatened legal action if the agency continued to approve them.

    “We’re witnessing a complete circumvention of the nation’s leading public health agency,” said Richard Besser, former acting director of the CDC and president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

    It’s important to recall Kennedy’s role during the measles outbreak, when cases surged past 700 and a second young child died in Texas from measles. Despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine to prevent such outcomes, Kennedy’s vaccine skepticism has contributed to declining vaccination rates.

    Furthermore, Kennedy has not implemented other recommendations from the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, including the introduction of a new meningitis vaccine and expanding RSV vaccine eligibility to high-risk adults aged 50 to 59.

    The vaccine advisory panel is not scheduled to vote on COVID-19 vaccine recommendations until late June, potentially causing delays for manufacturers in preparing vaccines for the upcoming fall season.

    Many warned former President Trump against appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr., cautioning about his controversial views. However, it appears that Kennedy’s public support for Trump’s presidency was linked to promises of him being appointed to HHS.

  • GOP Bill Provision Threatens Legal Challenges to Trump

    Concern is intensifying over a single paragraph hidden deep within the GOP bill, as its implications may ripple through our society in unprecedented ways.

    A recently passed spending bill by the GOP-controlled House of Representatives contains a concerning provision that could significantly hinder legal challenges against the Trump administration. This clause would require individuals challenging the administration to post a bond, a financial burden that many cannot afford. As a result, it would effectively restrict the ability to contest the powerful actions of one of the most formidable figures in the country to those who are wealthy.

    In the text found on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, concerns have been raised for reasons unrelated to America’s budget, safety-net programs, or national debt. The cited paragraph references a federal rule regarding civil court procedures, which mandates that any individual seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to prevent an action by the Trump administration must post a financial bond.

    Democracy watchdogs are alarmed by this provision, fearing it will create an environment where only affluent individuals or entities can afford to stand up against an administration that has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for oversight and judicial authority. The provision would increase the costs associated with pursuing legal actions against Trump’s policies, particularly for those seeking injunctions against presidential orders or directives. This added financial hurdle represents a clear tactic to discourage opposition and protect the administration from accountability.

    By implementing this financial barrier, the intention to shield the Trump administration from judicial scrutiny becomes evident. Both the House and the Senate must reject this measure to uphold the integrity of judicial power and ensure that all individuals have the ability to challenge governmental overreach, regardless of their financial status.

  • Trump must have missed fundamentals of Economics 101

    Once again, we find ourselves facing the controversial actions of President Donald Trump, who has announced plans to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the European Union to a staggering 50%. This decision comes amidst ongoing negotiations, raising questions about his strategy. Is he attempting to assert his authority, or is he simply improvising without a coherent plan?

    On Friday, President Trump revealed his intent to escalate tariffs from the current 25%, further intensifying the ongoing trade conflict with global steel producers. This move deepens the already complex situation and stirs uncertainty within the international economy.

    In response, the European Commission expressed its strong disapproval of the U.S. decision to increase tariffs, indicating that the European Union is ready to implement countermeasures. Such a response adds another layer of unpredictability to the global market, potentially driving up costs for consumers and businesses across both regions.

    The EU is actively working on potential retaliatory measures. If no agreeable resolution is reached, existing and new EU countermeasures could be implemented as early as July 14, or even sooner if urgent circumstances arise.

    Many observers are left questioning Trump’s economic acumen, with concerns that his primary focus seems to be favoring the wealthy, rather than effectively managing national and international economic interests. It’s almost as if he missed the fundamentals of Economics 101.

  • Trump’s ‘King-like’ Presidency: Courts Step In

    Donald Trump is accused by critics of acting like a king, with a “power drunk” approach to the presidency. They charge that the Republican Congress has abandoned its responsibilities and handed over significant power, leaving the courts as largely the only part of the government still upholding the Constitution.

    This was recently demonstrated by a decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court on Friday blocked President Trump’s efforts to carry out massive firings and restructure federal agencies through an executive order. The court ruled that the February order exceeded his constitutional authority and that the potential harm from the proposed changes justified the block as legal challenges continue.

    A coalition behind the legal challenge stated that the court’s decision “rightfully maintains the block on the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful, disruptive, and destructive reorganization of the federal government.”

    They argue that the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle government functions without congressional approval was reckless and threatened vital services Americans rely on daily – from caring for veterans and safeguarding public health, to protecting the environment and maintaining national security. This action, labeled an “illegal power grab,” would, in their view, gut federal agencies, disrupt communities, and put critical public services at risk.

    This situation is seen by critics as further evidence of Trump’s total disregard for the rule of law. Let’s remember he is a convicted felon.

  • Trump’s Trust in Musk: A Risky Bet Amid Drug Allegations

    The relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk has been a subject of scrutiny, particularly in light of reports concerning Musk’s alleged drug use. Despite these reports, Trump has publicly expressed his unwavering support for Musk, dismissing any concerns about his behavior and judgment. This raises questions about the basis for Trump’s trust in Musk and the potential implications of entrusting him with significant responsibilities.

    Following Musk’s departure from his advisory role to President Trump, reports surfaced detailing his alleged consumption of various drugs, including LSD, cocaine, ecstasy, mushrooms, and ketamine. These allegations, supported by sources close to Musk, raise concerns about his judgment and decision-making abilities, particularly during the period when he held a position of influence within the government.

    Despite the seriousness of these allegations, Trump has remained steadfast in his support for Musk, even dismissing the credibility of the news outlets reporting on the matter. This unwavering trust raises questions about Trump’s own judgment and the criteria he uses when selecting individuals for positions of power and influence.

    Musk’s responsibilities under the Trump administration included overseeing the downsizing of the federal government. This involved making decisions about personnel and resource allocation, with potentially far-reaching consequences for various government agencies. Given the reports of Musk’s alleged drug use, concerns have been raised about the extent to which his judgment may have been impaired during this period, potentially leading to misjudgments and poorly considered cuts.

    The implications of Trump’s ongoing trust in Musk, despite the serious allegations regarding his behavior, are profound. This situation raises significant concerns about the potential for compromised decision-making and the overall integrity of the government.

  • Trump Leaves North Carolina on the Hook for over $200 million

    Trump criticized the Biden administration for their response to Hurricane Helene last fall and in January, promising to rebuild storm-ravaged areas better than ever.

    However, the administration abruptly denied Gov. Josh Stein’s request for continued federal funding, leaving North Carolina responsible for over $200 million in additional expenses for recovery efforts. The president’s actions do not align with his words, and it is North Carolinians who will suffer as a result.

    Governor Josh Stein is imploring President Trump to reconsider FEMA’s alarming decision to deny an extension of its 100% cost-match for expenses related to Hurricane Helene, a action that results in leaving victims in a precarious situation.

    “Hurricane Helene caused incredible damage to western North Carolina. President Trump, as you noted when you visited the region in January, we need a focus on debris removal to create a clean slate from which we can effectively rebuild,” wrote Governor Josh Stein. “I therefore respectfully urge you to reconsider FEMA’s regretful decision and extend our 100 percent cost share period for six months – failing that, then for three months. Doing so would allow us to continue to build on the momentum you have helped us achieve.”

    So Trump claims one thing yet acts in stark contrast! His word is unworthy of trust, as he lacks any moral compass, driven only by the fleeting whims of the moment to rally the support of MAGA!

  • U.S. Court Blocks Trump Tariffs

    A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade has unanimously determined that Congress did not grant the president expansive tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which was a key aspect of Donald Trump’s reasoning . The court emphasized in its unsigned opinion that an unbounded delegation of tariff power would amount to an inappropriate surrender of legislative authority to another branch of government.

    The Court of International Trade determined that an emergency law enacted by the White House does not confer upon the president the unilateral power to impose tariffs on nearly all nations globally.

    The court located in New York affirmed that the United States Constitution bestows upon Congress the exclusive authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, a power that is not overshadowed by the president’s jurisdiction to protect the economy.

    The IEEPA provides the president with the ability to impose necessary economic sanctions during a state of emergency to address an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” The ruling, issued on Wednesday, effectively blocks Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announced on April 2, which mandated a 10 percent tariff on all imports along with higher reciprocal tariffs for various countries. It also nullifies previous tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China, many of which had already been postponed or modified due to declines in the stock market and rising Treasury yields following Trump’s trade policy changes.

    The judges have granted the Trump administration ten days to issue any administrative orders required to implement their ruling. The panel included Judge Timothy Reif, appointed by Trump; Judge Jane Restani, appointed by former President Reagan; and Judge Gary Katzmann, appointed by former President Obama.

    Goldman Sachs has cautioned that these tariffs could trigger a recession, highlighting the risk of slower economic growth. The firm warns that increased tariffs could elevate consumer prices and reduce real income, which may ultimately affect consumer spending.

  • Wealthy Republicans Push Tax Breaks for Themselfs While Cutting Social Programs

    A report from the watchdog group Accountable.US highlights how wealthy Republican members of Congress stand to benefit from tax breaks they are pushing to extend, even as they support cuts to vital social programs that millions of their less affluent constituents rely on.

    According to Accountable.US, the top 10 richest Republican senators and top 25 richest GOP members of the House hold collective net worths exceeding $1.1 billion and $1.4 billion respectively. These individuals are positioned to significantly benefit from the tax breaks enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which they are now seeking to extend.

    This push for tax benefits for the wealthy coincides with consideration of a spending package – referred to in the source as President Trump and congressional Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” – which would cut food and healthcare benefits for millions of working-class Americans. Accountable.US calculates that dozens of the wealthiest GOP members, collectively worth an estimated $2.5 billion, gain from this overall legislative approach.

    The report argues these wealthy members are advocating for “draconian cuts” to programs such as federal student aid, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – programs crucial for the millions of their constituents who depend on them.

    Specifically, Accountable.US found that 6.3 million constituents represented by the top 10 richest senators and 2.1 million constituents represented by the top 25 richest representatives use SNAP and are at risk of losing food security. Additionally, 9.2 million constituents in the richest senators’ areas and 4 million in the richest representatives’ districts use Medicaid and face the risk of losing critically needed healthcare.

    The report notes the irony that some Republicans voted for cuts affecting Medicaid despite having previously acknowledged high rates of dependency on the program in their own districts.