Login
As the veepstakes speculation grows, Donald Trump—Republicans’ presumptive nominee for president for the third straight time—has had plenty to say about the group of contenders for the second spot on the ticket.
Axios reported over the weekend on an audio recording obtained from a gathering at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in which the former president comments on numerous contenders for his choice to be vice president.
Those possible Trump choices include three fellow Floridians who are in Congress: Sen. Marco Rubio and Reps. Byron Donalds and Michael Waltz. Trump also talked about two former 2024 primary opponents, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.
The names of three more senators also were in the mix: Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Lee of Utah, and JD Vance of Ohio. And Trump commented on the often-mentioned chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, Elise Stefanik of New York.
North Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican who made the news last week for telling a story in her new memoir about shooting and killing a 14-month-old farm dog, was among those that Trump commented on. (For her part, Noem said the dog posed a danger to her family and other animals after killing chickens.)
“Somebody that I love,” Trump says of Noem in the audio recording released by Axios. “She’s been with me, a supporter of mine, and I’ve been a supporter of hers for a long time.”
Axios reported that Trump’s “most prominent surrogates” went to Mar-a-Lago on Saturday to “audition for vice president.” At a private luncheon, Trump commented on the potential running mates, the outlet said.
In the recording,Trump doesn’t seem to resent by name any former opponents in the 2024 Republican primaries who reportedly have been in the running for his nod to be vice president. (However, he doesn’t mention Nikki Haley, his former U.N. ambassador, who didn’t drop out until March 6.)
As for North Dakota’s Burgum, governor of a state next door to Noem’s, Trump says: “I didn’t know this: He was a supporter of my two campaigns. He’s a very rich man.”
On Scott, the South Carolina senator, Trump says: “As a candidate, he did a good job, but as a surrogate, he’s unbelievable.”
In a press release Monday, BetOnline announced that it was updating its betting odds after the Mar-a-Lago meeting, giving Scott and Burgum the best odds at 4-1. Vance, once seen as a longshot, rose to 5-1. Rubio is 8-1.
Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a Democrat in Congress who became an independent after leaving office, is at 9-1. Gabbard’s name, however, doesn’t come up in the Trump audio leaked to Axios.
Interestingly, none of the possible contenders mentioned by Trump were from battleground states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.
Trump notes that Vance wasn’t always on board, according to the audio, but calls the junior senator from Ohio “great,” Axios reported.
“He wasn’t a supporter of mine at the very beginning [and] was saying things like ‘the guy’s a total disaster’… Anyways, I got to know him a little bit,” Trump says of Vance. “As a non-politician, he’s become one of the great senators.”
In the 2016 Republican primary cycle, Trump mocked Florida’s Rubio as “Little Marco.” Rubio at one point referred to Trump’s small hands.
In the audio, Trump only says of Rubio: “His name is coming up a lot for vice president.”
Significant news coverage has shown Trump gaining support among black men. Beyond Scott of South Carolina, Trump mentions two other possible black running mates in the audio recording.
Of Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas, Trump says: “Another friend of mine … makes the best commercials … beautiful family.”
Of a potential choice that would create a team of Donalds, Trump says of Donalds, the Florida congressman: “Somebody who’s created something very special politically. … I like diversity. Diversité, as you would say. I like diversité. [Donors] worth millions of dollars … all want a piece of Byron.”
There has also been plenty of speculation about Trump picking a woman to close the gender gap.
Regarding Blackburn of Tennessee, Trump says “she was like the Energizer Bunny” in 2018, when she successfully campaigned to leave the House for the Senate. “She would go from stop to stop to stop.”
Of Stefanik, Trump says in the audio: “A very smart person. She was in upstate New York when I met her. … little did we realize she would be such a big factor.”
Trump is a former resident of New York City, where he built much of his real estate empire. He is now a resident of Florida.
There is some debate about whether the 12th Amendment allows a president and vice president to be from the same state, and that debate could come into play if Trump wanted to select Stefanik, Rubio, Donalds, or Waltz.
Of Waltz, Trump says in the recording: “A man that knows more about the military. When I want to know about the military, I call him.”
Lee is a one-time critic of Trump who supported Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in the 2016 presidential primaries for the GOP nomination, when Lee also sported more hair.
In the audio, Lee gains some praise from the former president, who says of him: “I love your haircut” before adding: “And he’s a good man too.”
The Trump campaign didn’t respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment for this report.
The post Do Trump’s Words on These Contenders Hint at His VP Pick? appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The top U.S. House committee charged with tax law and oversight has launched a formal investigation into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its affiliated foundation, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.
The post Exclusive – House Panel Launches Official Investigation into U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tax Status over Soros-Linked Donations to Foundation appeared first on Breitbart.
Republican Mara Macie, who is challenging establishment Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL) in Florida’s conservative Fifth Congressional District primary, told Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Saturday that her “salesman” opponent consistently votes the opposite of what his constituents want and is facing
The post Exclusive–Florida GOP Congressional Candidate Mara Macie: Constituents Fed Up with Establishment Rep. Rutherford’s Voting Record appeared first on Breitbart.
Experts, including one of the world's top researchers on the Uyghur genocide and a senior official in the Department of Labor, told Congress this week that legitimate audits to inspect for slave conditions and other forced labor in China, especially in the occupied Uyghur region, are "impossible."
The post ‘The Only Ethical Response Is Divestment’: Experts Tell Congress Auditing for Slavery in Chinese Factories Impossible appeared first on Breitbart.
Former Republican congressional candidate Bryan E. Leib has officially entered the 2024 GOP primary in the Sunshine State’s 25th District, advocating for fresh leadership in Congress to uphold “common sense,” Judeo-Christian values, and Trump's “America First” agenda; he is challenging long-serving Democrat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The post Exclusive: ‘America First’ Trump Supporter Seeks to Unseat Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz appeared first on Breitbart.
For Rep. Chip Roy, it’s a frustrating conversation that happens all too often with fellow lawmakers on his side of the aisle.
“‘Chip, we have a razor-thin majority. We just have to win the White House; we just have to win the Senate,’” the Texas Republican recalled in a speech Tuesday.
When he hears colleagues concerned about the narrow 217-212 House Republican majority, he notes the Democrats’ narrow Senate majority—51 senators in the Democratic caucus compared with 49 Republicans.
“Well, when do they ever look across there and say Chuck Schumer has a razor-thin majority?” Roy said of the Senate Democratic leader from New York. “When do they ever look and say, ‘You’re actually in charge of the House of Representatives, which James Madison told you in [Federalist Paper 58] actually has the power of the purse. Do something with it. Stop making excuses.’”
That prompted applause from the audience at The Heritage Foundation at an event, “Defunding the Left.” (Heritage founded The Daily Signal in 2014.)
Roy had earlier quoted Madison—father of the Constitution and later the fourth president of the United States—who wrote in Federalist 58:
The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. … This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any Constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
Though the GOP mostly prevented nondefense spending hikes, and kept the political focus on border security, he said irresponsible spending is a bipartisan problem that “infests the entire swamp” in both parties.
“The fundamental problem is not just the weakening of the dollar and the strength of our financial system. It’s actually the radical Left funding the tyranny, funding the government that’s at war with your way of life.”
He noted the Republican-controlled House approved $62 billion in funding for the Department of Homeland Security amid rising crime and fentanyl deaths in the U.S. resulting from the border crisis.
The House majority also went along with $200 million to fund a new FBI headquarters and overall about $40 billion for the Justice Department, despite concerns about politicized lawfare. He noted $824 billion went to the Defense Department with no demands to scrap its focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that are hurting armed forces recruitment.
The House majority allowed $80 billion for the Department of Education; $9 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency; and $117 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services, while requiring no accountability for mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic by departmental subordinate agencies, such as National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
While his GOP colleagues often talk about the need to win the next election, Roy said, conservative control of both houses of Congress and the White House are not guaranteed to reverse the trend.
“Literally, on Day One, they are going to say, ‘Chip, we can’t do all you want to do because we don’t have 60 in the Senate. You’ve got to be reasonable.’” Roy predicted. “I promise you that’s coming. So, we have to win majorities. But we have to plan now for driving a steamroller over the weak-kneed individuals in Congress that will use 60 [as a premise] not to fight for you.”
In the Senate, 60 votes are required to end filibusters.
Roy noted there were some positive accomplishments, however. Since winning the majority, House Republicans have for the most part “kept the ball on our side of the field,” he said.
Nondefense spending was largely held flat, while increased defense spending in 2023 was initially paid for by taking money out of the Internal Revenue Service and unspent COVID-19 funding.
That occurred after then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., put caps in place, even though the caps were discarded in January. Further, Roy noted that House Republicans didn’t let Democrats redirect the border debate to one of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
“Amnesty was off the table. All we talked about this last year was border security. We didn’t achieve it, but we didn’t allow the Democrats to start moving the ball down the field and have a debate about amnesty,” Roy said. “It matters where you set the goal post and how you set your mission.”
The Texas lawmaker criticized the recent $95 billion foreign aid package that passed without the support of most Republicans. He said that too often, members of Congress “default to fear” on defense spending.
“I want the strongest military that we can possibly produce. I want it to be sparingly used,” Roy said, adding:
I don’t want to use it often, but if we do, I want it to destroy everything in its path. But we just default to fear, and we use the national security-defense complex to run over everything else.
“People literally come into [House Republicans’] meetings and say, ‘We just can’t risk defense.’ Well, if that’s what you do, you’re never going to change the town,” he continued, “because they are always going to use defense as the leverage to say, ‘We’re not going to cut [the Justice Department]; we’re not going to cut education; we’re not going to make reforms.”
The post Texas Lawmaker Reminds GOP of Madison’s Words About Power of the Purse appeared first on The Daily Signal.
It’s no secret that Congress is highly unpopular with the American people. For years, it consistently has ranked near the bottom of U.S. institutions. This month’s Gallup/Newsweek poll put its disapproval at 80%.
But how about its leaders?
Veteran pollster and TV host Scott Rasmussen, president of RMG Research, surveyed 2,000 registered voters last week to see how Congress’ four party leaders stack up.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the longest-serving party leader in the chamber’s history, fares the worst with a 58% unfavorable rating. His counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., comes in at 43%.
On the House side, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., the newest of the four congressional leaders, has a 31% unfavorable rating compared to 26% for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
More than 1 in 5 voters (22%) say they never heard of Johnson, while nearly one-third (31%) say they haven’t heard of Jeffries.
All four congressional leaders have a higher unfavorable rating than favorable.
Rasmussen also asked voters about President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, neither of whom received positive marks. Disapproval was higher for Biden, at 57%, compared to Harris, who has a 53% unfavorable rating.
Biden’s numbers have hovered around the same mark for months, although they are slightly better today than a few months ago, according to Rasmussen’s tracker.
The president ended last year with a 61% disapproval rate. Harris’ approval, meanwhile, cracked 40% for the first time in nearly a year.
Among the congressional leaders, Johnson’s favorable rating is 29% compared to 31% unfavorable. Jeffries is viewed favorably by 24% of voters compared to 26% unfavorable.
Schumer has a 32% favorable rating and 43% unfavorable rating. McConnell, who tops the charts with a 58% unfavorable rating, is viewed favorably by 23%.
RMG Research’s survey of 2,000 registered voters was conducted April 22 to 25 as Congress was considering a $95 billion foreign aid package. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.
The post Can You Guess the Most Unpopular Leader in Congress? appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The Republican establishment doesn’t know it yet, but last weekend was a watershed moment for their party.
On April 20, House Republican leadership facilitated passage of a foreign-aid package that sends roughly $60 billion to Ukraine, $26 billion to Israel and Gaza, $8 billion to Taiwan, and exactly zero dollars to the southern border. The bill has since passed the Democrat-led Senate and was signed by President Joe Biden.
The vote will be remembered for the choice Republican leadership made to brazenly reject its own voters in favor of the “uniparty” in Washington, D.C.
In a move that can only be described as “McConnell-esque,” House Republican leadership teamed up with Democrats to overrule the position of their own conference, their voters, and the will of the American people.
Democrats on the House Rules Committee made an unprecedented move by crossing the party line and overruling Republican opposition in committee, signaling an end to the typically Democrat versus Republican battle and the beginning of the conservative versus “uniparty” war.
The disconnect between “the Swamp” and small-town America could not be more profound. How can a political party be so tone-deaf to the plight of the everyday Americans suffering under inflation, crime, and societal rot?
How can a Republican-led House prioritize the borders of another country over our own border, even as American citizens are killed by illegal immigrants?
How can so-called fiscally responsible Republicans sign off on what is now $174 billion in direct Ukraine aid with a national debt of $34 trillion—more than $250,000 for every American household?
And how can House Speaker Mike Johnson, who had pledged repeatedly that no foreign-aid legislation would advance without first securing the border, so quickly be steamrolled by the Establishment?
In their desire to send billions of dollars to a conflict that our commander-in-chief has still, to this day, offered no plan for winning, the GOP’s leadership not only spurned their party’s own supporters but overlooked an opportunity to appeal to independent Americans frustrated by both political parties.
According to recent polling that The Heritage Foundation conducted with RMG Research, an overwhelming three out of four swing voters opposed sending any additional aid to Ukraine without also allocating funds for our own border. A majority (56%) of swing voters in key battleground states thought that the $113 billion the United States had already committed to Ukraine was too much.
The entire Heritage enterprise fought for over a year and a half on this issue. Heritage Action for America engaged our millions of grassroots members to voice their concerns to their representatives. Scholars at The Heritage Foundation presented a national security alternative package that included limited military aid to Ukraine but made border security the central focus. In an unprecedented move, we even issued a “key vote” on our legislative scorecard against Speaker Johnson’s convoluted rule, which was a gimmick that lowered the threshold to a simple majority (not a supermajority under suspension) and provided political cover for members to vote against individual pieces without jeopardizing the package.
Powerful interests were aligned against us, however, and we lost on the day. Though we lost this battle, all signs indicate that we are winning the war for the soul of the GOP. A majority of Republicans (112) voted against Ukraine aid on April 20. Younger and newer members are particularly fed up with leadership’s conciliatory approach and manipulative tactics that have led us to this point. The average age of the Senate Republicans who voted “nay” is 59, while the average age of those who voted “yea” is 66. The average “nay” vote has been in office since just 2016, while the average “yea” vote has been in Washington since 2010. The same dynamic was true with the recent $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill.
This generational shift can be ignored by the “uniparty,” but it’s not going away. Newer, younger representatives want a choice, not an echo; and increasingly, they’re adopting a populist form of conservatism that champions “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” above all else.
In other words, they want a GOP that puts America first, something a government in any healthy republic would do. They want a GOP that acknowledges the reality that America is a nation in decline but is not yet too late to save.
As Ronald Reagan said in his 1980 address accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention, “For those who have abandoned hope, we’ll restore hope and we’ll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!”
And that brings us to the importance of this year’s election.
In 2016, despite staunch opposition from the GOP leadership, Donald Trump rejected the Washington consensus and initiated a generational realignment in American politics. If the conservative movement leans into the politics and policies President Donald Trump made successful, the American people will again have the opportunity this fall to accelerate a new consensus in Washington, D.C. This is why I remain optimistic about the future of our great nation.
The GOP establishment’s actions this past week portend the end of the GOP establishment, not its survival. Conservatives will win the soul of the GOP, and with it, the hearts of the American people.
Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times.
The post GOP Establishment’s Days Are Numbered appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The House passed a four-bill $95 billion foreign aid package over the weekend that includes $60 billion in additional aid for Ukraine. The bill could cost House Speaker Mike Johnson his job.
The aid package passed in a 311-112 vote with the unanimous support of Democrats and 101 Republicans voting in favor of the bill.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., threatened to introduce a motion to remove Johnson, R-La., from his position as speaker if he brought the funding for Ukraine to the House floor for a vote.
“I think she’s looking at the totality of what’s come across the floor over the past few months, and she is expressing extreme disappointment with that,” Ryan Walker, executive vice president of Heritage Action for America, says of Greene. (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation, of which Heritage Action is the grassroots arm.)
Greene left Washington at the end of last week without introducing the motion to vacate the speaker but said during an interview Sunday on Fox News that she still planned to try to oust Johnson.
“Mike Johnson’s speakership is over,” Greene said on “Sunday Morning Futures,” adding, “He needs to do the right thing—to resign and allow us to move forward in a controlled process. If he doesn’t do so, he will be vacated.”
Less than one year after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted from the role, Capitol Hill is bracing for the potential of another speakership battle when Congress returns to Washington next week.
Walker joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain the reason for the sharp divide in Congress over the foreign aid package and the likelihood Johnson will face removal as speaker. Walker also explains where Congress is getting the money to send to Ukraine.
Listen to the podcast below:
The post Why Speaker Johnson’s Job Is on the Line After House Votes $60 Billion for Ukraine appeared first on The Daily Signal.
If those in federal office are willing to pay attention, the states are displaying the best—and the worst—of our republican form of government.
Every four years, American citizens get the opportunity to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, endorse a policy agenda for the nation, and hold the occupant of the highest office in our federal government to account for his leadership or lack thereof.
But in the intervening years between what some treat as a national Rorschach test, lawmakers are the policymakers entrusted to express the will of the people.
Fifty laboratories of innovation provide Americans with the freedom to vote with their feet by living in states that reflect the priorities around which their pursuit of happiness seems most reliably cultivated. The states also provide an effective case study for varying policy initiatives upon which our federal government can rely for evidence-based decision-making for the nation.
As an example, the Tennessee General Assembly recently passed landmark legislation addressing the disturbing trend of debanking. Once signed by Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, this law will provide consumer protection by prohibiting big banks from canceling accounts based on the constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religious exercise.
Applying to the largest financial institutions, those with at least $100 billion in assets, the law provides a road map for other states to follow. Since the federal government is where banks that are “too big to fail” look for taxpayer-funded bailouts, Congress should follow Tennessee’s lead as well.
Contrast this approach of protecting access to basic financial services regardless of ideology with the state of New York. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard from the National Rifle Association, which is seeking to stop New York state officials from using political power to coerce banks, insurers, and other service providers to refuse service to the Second Amendment advocacy organization.
In Idaho, Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, signed HB 578, which will ensure that faith-based adoption and foster care providers are free to serve children in need and work with the state to find loving, forever homes for kids.
Meanwhile, next door in Oregon, Jessica Bates is prevented from adopting children because she won’t agree to the state’s demand that she promote gender ideology. Apparently, Bates doesn’t have a high enough “social credit score” to be deemed a worthy parent by the state.
Idaho simultaneously protects the right of conscience and promotes the best interests of children in need of loving homes, while Oregon prioritizes politics over people.
One might look at these polar-opposite expressions of policy preferences and despair of a nation plagued by irreconcilable differences. But to the federalists among us, these differences are not a bug but a feature of our system.
Our national political culture is divided, but no more so now than it was at our founding. Today we simply have divisions of 50 instead of the 13 that existed when our Constitution was adopted. Then, as now, life in the states can look drastically different across our internal borders.
From the beginning, these United States of America were a hodgepodge of varying ethnicities, religions, economies, and political beliefs. What united the states then can still unite them today—the recognition of our fundamental God-given rights and the implicit American compact to protect those rights for all, regardless of which direction the political winds may blow across a state or the nation.
If an executive or legislative branch of state or federal government, even with popular support, goes so far as to implement policy that conflicts with these fundamental rights, our judiciary is empowered to rein in the wayward whims of the democratic process. This ensures that our fundamental rights are recognized in all 50 states while allowing for policy differences on other matters.
American journalist H.L. Mencken once said: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Thankfully, our Founders were keenly aware of the fallen nature of man, the seductive trappings of power, and thus the perils of pure democracy for the God-given rights of the individual. They had the foresight to give us, as Benjamin Franklin reportedly quipped, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
When our federal government is focused on protecting fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution’s principles while respecting the role and differences of the states, we improve our chances of “keeping it.”
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
The post Differences Among States Are a Plus, Not a Bug, in Our System appeared first on The Daily Signal.
House Democrats released an agenda Thursday that includes a vow to codify a right to so-called gender-affirming care—transgender surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers.
The promise came within the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ agenda, which House Democrats first shared with NBC News. That agenda includes a slew of left-wing interests, including promises of a higher minimum wage and stronger antitrust laws.
“If the progressive base is not excited and enthusiastic—and if they don’t feel like we are trying to earn their votes and that they are important—then I think the horrific idea of a second Donald Trump presidency could become reality,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who chairs the progressive caucus, told NBC News in an interview. “We cannot afford to let that happen. And we won’t.”
Although NBC claims that the agenda goes “lighter on cultural issues,” under the category “advancing justice,” it promises to “codify the rights of transgender, nonbinary and intersex people, including gender-affirming care and health care.”
Jayapal did not respond to requests for comment for this article explaining what, exactly, codifying a right to “gender-affirming care” would entail.
In March 2023, she joined with other Democrats in introducing a “Trans Bill of Rights,” citing the rise in parental rights laws, laws protecting kids from gender transitions, and laws prohibiting boys from participating in girls and women’s sports.
“Day after day, we see a constant onslaught of anti-trans rhetoric and legislation coming from elected officials. Today, we say enough is enough,” Jayapal said at the time. “Our Trans Bill of Rights says clearly to the trans community across the country that we see you, and we will stand with you, to ensure you are protected and given the dignity and respect that every person should have.”
That legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include gender identity as “protected characteristics.” It would also amend federal education laws to say that they protect kids from being discriminated against based on gender identity.
The Trans Bill of Rights also called for ensuring that “every child has the right to grow up in a supportive environment by having their authentic identity respected in the classroom, ensuring they can participate in school sports with their peers, and ensuring access to an inclusive curriculum.”
It further called for “expanding access” to trans surgeries, hormones, and puberty blockers and codifying rights to abortion and contraception.
Jayapal told NBC News that progressive Democrats assume “this is an agenda for a Democratic president with a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.”
She added: “We have to excite our base. We have to show them what the path forward is—not just say, ‘This is the most important election of your life, and we expect you to vote.’ I don’t think that’s going to turn people out. And so, I think this agenda, really, speaks to the needs of poor people, working people, progressives across the country who want us to make that case to them.”
“We are not seeing the momentum that we would like to see,” she told NBC. We’re going to have a tough election. … We know we’re going to have to put together that progressive coalition. And I think this is the thing that allows us to say, “‘Look, here’s what we’re fighting for.’”
The post House Democrats Vow to Codify ‘Rights’ to Trans Surgeries, Hormones, Puberty Blockers appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Rep. Ralph Norman reintroduced a bill Wednesday aimed at stopping a form of federal spending known as earmarks.
“I’ve always said that earmarks are evil,” Norman, R-N.C. told The Daily Signal. “They are sneaky in the way that they get tacked onto big, important spending packages to be automatically passed by the ‘uniparty’ with the hope that no one looks into the details.”
Lawmakers use earmarks, often referred to as “pork,” to receive funding for projects in their districts. Earmarks are often inserted into large spending bills where they are likely to largely go unnoticed. A congressional earmark dedicates federal funds for a specific purpose, such as the construction of a bridge, the restoration of a city landmark, or a local program.
“Basically, an earmark is taxpayer funding for a personalized pet project for a particular district or special interest group,” Norman said.
The six-page bill he reintroduced Wednesday prohibits Congress from considering legislation that contains earmarks, thus banning the practice.
Norman introduced the bill, known as the Earmark Elimination Act, twice before, and most recently in February 2021.
Five Republican lawmakers are currently co-sponsoring the bill, including Reps. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Matt Rosendale of Montana, Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin, Tom McClintock of California, and Andy Ogles of Tennessee.
Earmarks have long been debated and were even temporarily banned in Congress from 2011 to 2021. Among the most notorious congressional earmark schemes was in 2005 when two lawmakers from Alaska earmarked $223 million to build a bridge from Ketchikan to the island of Gravina, which at the time had a population of about 50 people. The project was nicknamed the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
“Attaching earmarks to large spending packages doesn’t allow for public discussion,” Norman criticized. “Congress, with the power of the purse, should be primarily looking out for the people’s tax dollars and getting federal spending down as soon as possible.”
Bloomberg Government reports that among the federal government’s 2024 spending bills, Republican and Democrat lawmakers inserted 8,099 earmarks accounting for $14.6 billion.
“To me, this is the most wasteful, abusive way to use hard-earned taxpayer dollars,” Norman said.
The post EXCLUSIVE: Congressman Calls on House to Pass Bill Banning Earmarks appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The House delivered the two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate on Tuesday afternoon.
The articles are expected to be acted on quickly by the Democrat-controlled Senate, but not in the manner House GOP lawmakers are seeking.
“We want to address this issue as expeditiously as possible,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech Monday discussing the articles of impeachment.
Republicans who backed the impeachment of Mayorkas are concerned that Schumer will hold a vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment altogether. Dismissal only requires a simple majority, which is not out of the question, given Democrats’ control of the upper chamber.
Schumer also has the option to refer the articles to committee, where they would likely die, or to hold a full Senate trial, which Schumer is not expected to do, given his own vocal opposition to Mayorkas’ impeachment.
“Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement,” Schumer said, adding, “That would set a horrible precedent for the Congress.”
House and Senate Republicans supporting impeachment have maintained a pressure campaign on Schumer to force a Senate trial.
“Under the Constitution, the responsibility of the Senate is simple and straightforward: The Senate must hold a trial,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
“Chuck Schumer doesn’t want to do that,” Cruz added. “Instead, he wants to move to table the entire thing for three reasons. First, he does not want to allow the House managers to present evidence of Mayorkas’ willful decision to aid and abet the criminal invasion of this country. Second, he does not want the American people to see the facts. Third, he does not want Senate Democrats on the ballot in November to have to vote ‘not guilty’ because the evidence is indisputable—Alejandro Mayorkas is guilty.”
Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., serves as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and led the impeachment effort against Mayorkas.
“The American people demand accountability,” Green wrote on X, in response to House Speaker Mike Johnson signing the articles of impeachment Monday.
Tomorrow I’m joining @SpeakerJohnson to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The American people demand accountability. https://t.co/PLkTs9yOyL
— Rep. Mark Green (@RepMarkGreen) April 15, 2024
The Republican-controlled House voted 214 to 213 on a party-line vote to impeach Mayorkas on Feb. 13 after a failed attempt a week prior.
The House’s first article alleges that the homeland security secretary has failed to secure America’s border and enforce immigration laws, and instead has executed policies that incentivize illegal immigration.
The House’s second article of impeachment contends that Mayorkas is in breach of the public trust and knowingly has made false statements to Congress and the American people.
Like his conservative colleagues in the House, Cruz says Mayorkas bears much of the responsibility for the record high number of encounters of illegal aliens at America’s borders.
“Mayorkas has aided and abetted the criminal invasion of the United States,” Cruz said. “This is a humanitarian, public safety, and national security crisis.”
Schumer told his fellow senators in a “Dear Colleague” letter on April 5 that when the articles of impeachment arrive in the Senate, senators will be sworn in as jurors the following day and that Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray, D-Wash., will preside over the chamber.
The House was originally going to deliver the two articles of impeachment to the Senate on April 10, but Johnson delayed the delivery after a group of GOP senators asked him to do so to allow more time for debate on the Senate floor before the weekend.
Schumer said Monday that his plan of action in the Senate has not changed despite the arrival of the articles being delayed six days.
The post Long-Awaited Articles of Impeachment Against DHS Secretary Mayorkas Arrive in Senate appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Vivek Ramaswamy has endorsed Army veteran Kevin Virgil, who is primarying Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA) in Iowa’s Fourth Congressional District.
The post Exclusive: Vivek Ramaswamy Endorses Feenstra Challenger Kevin Virgil in Iowa GOP Congressional Primary appeared first on Breitbart.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., announced on social media Tuesday that he’s co-sponsoring a motion to vacate the chair against House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
In doing so, Massie joined the motion to vacate push against Johnson launched by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., in March. Massie is the first other Republican to back Greene in the effort.
“I just told Mike Johnson in conference that I’m co-sponsoring the Motion to Vacate that was introduced by [Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene],” Massie wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “He should pre-announce his resignation (as Boehner did), so we can pick a new Speaker without ever being without a GOP Speaker.” That’s a reference to another former House speaker, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.
I just told Mike Johnson in conference that I’m cosponsoring the Motion to Vacate that was introduced by @RepMTG.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 16, 2024
He should pre-announce his resignation (as Boehner did), so we can pick a new Speaker without ever being without a GOP Speaker.
Johnson, according to NBC’s Jake Sherman, said that he’s not resigning.
“I am not resigning. And it is in my view an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs,” Johnson said.
.@SpeakerJohnson responds: "I am not resigning. And it is in my view an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs." https://t.co/XAwQWDanh5
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) April 16, 2024
Johnson—who became the speaker after the ouster of his predecessor as speaker, former Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., by a motion to vacate in October—has been facing increasing pressure from conservatives in the House. In particular, Johnson has been criticized for working with Democrats on a bill to fund the Ukraine war effort.
Johnson continues to receive the support of former President Donald Trump. Trump said on Friday that Johnson is doing a “very good job” when the two appeared together at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Friday.
“I stand with the speaker,” Trump said.
Johnson was elected House speaker in October with 220 Republicans supporting him. Johnson’s election came after McCarthy was removed as speaker after eight Republicans and all Democrats voted against him.
Since Johnson became speaker, McCarthy and Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., resigned and left Congress. Former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., was expelled in a House vote, and Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., will resign effective on Friday. After Gallagher leaves office, there will be 217 Republicans and 213 Democrats, a razor-thin Republican majority.
The post Johnson Vows Not to Resign, as Second GOP Lawmaker Announces Support for Ouster appeared first on The Daily Signal.
The federal government increasingly looks like an Ivy League classroom, combining therapy for fragile souls with indoctrination into specious ideology.
Nowhere is this more apparent than at the State Department, where employees are encouraged to take courses in the name of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, or DEIA, that stress their differences, trauma, and status on the victim-oppressor continuum.
As reported by The Daily Wire, the State Department spent a whopping $77 million on DEIA programs last year for its staffing shop, the Bureau of Global Talent Management.
Just this past month, the State Department offered a training session called “Unveiling the Hidden Wounds: Exploring Racial Trauma and Minority Stress.” It promised a “space for empathy” where “voices are heard, wounds are acknowledged, and action is taken towards justice and equity.”
Then there was “A Conversation on Racial Equity and Social Justice” with Bryan Stevenson, who pulled in $55,000 in donations per minute for a single TED Talk.
Employees could also take the half-day course “Intersectional Gender Analysis Training,” which “explores how gender and systems of power shape an individual’s lived experience.” Alternatively, they could attend a seminar called “Embrace Equity and Inspire Change” or a series of female empowerment sessions such as “Elevating Women in Technology and Beyond.”
Anticipating resistance, the State Department offered the course “Understanding Backlash to DEIA and How to Address It,” in which psychologist Kimberly Rios claimed to “highlight evidence demonstrating that DEIA initiatives can challenge the power, values, status, belonging, and cultural identity of dominant group members, particularly White Americans whose racial identity is important to their sense of self.” Rios will do this, the announcement said with unwitting irony, “to promote intergroup harmony.”
Government employees are required to take a variety of training courses to advance in their careers. Even five years ago, most of these were about doing your job better—courses on leadership, management, and other skills. But in the “woke” era, employees are also subjected to ideological sessions such as those mentioned above.
Given what all these courses and speakers cost taxpayers to provide, is there any evidence that they are based on sound information or that they improve the workforce?
Let’s examine one offering more closely.
The State Department runs a “DEIA Distinguished Scholar Speaker Series” that “highlights cutting-edge scientific research,” under which the agency recently brought in Yale professor John Dovidio to give a talk titled “Racism Among the Well-Intentioned—Challenges and Solutions.”
In a 2013 speech, Dovidio said: “About 80% of white Americans will say they are not sexist or they’re not racist … but work with the IAT will show that 60% to 75% of the population are both racist and sexist at an implicit level.”
So, what is this “IAT” that Dovidio cites?
Harvard’s Implicit Association Test is a favorite tool of social scientists who want to prove that people are inherently racist and sexist. This is a necessary premise for critical race theory, which posits that nebulous concepts such as “structural bias” and “systems of oppression” can explain all variances in performance between racial groups rather than individual factors such as education, industry, and behavior. The Implicit Association Test offers the evidence the Left needs to support this theory.
But the Implicit Association Test isn’t an accepted measure of bias. One of its own inventors said, “I and my colleagues and collaborators do not call the IAT results a measure of implicit prejudice [or] implicit racism.”
And in a 2015 review, Hart Blanton of Texas A&M wrote that “all of the meta-analyses converge on the conclusion that … IAT scores are not good predictors of ethnic or racial discrimination and explain, at most, small fractions of the variance in discriminatory behavior in controlled laboratory setting.”
In a 2021 academic paper, Ulrich Schimmack came to the same conclusion, writing that “IATs are widely used without psychometric evidence of construct or predictive validity.”
As far back as 2008, in an article for the American Psychological Association, Beth Azar wrote that a person’s scores on the Implicit Association Test “often change from one test to another.” German Lopez, writing for Vox, took the test two days apart and found that in the first, he “had a slight automatic preference for white people,” and in the second, “a slight automatic preference … in favor of black people.”
Summing up, Greg Mitchell of the University of Virginia said, “The IAT is not yet ready for prime time.”
That’s hardly a firm foundation for using taxpayers’ money to train federal staff in a worldview that will affect their careers and lives. And of course, all of the hours employees spend auto-flagellating with critical race theory is paid time they are not working on matters of national interest.
One can’t put too much blame on race merchants such as Dovidio, Ibram X. Kendi, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Nikole Hannah-Jones for simply trying to sell their product. But the question is: Why is the government buying it with our money?
Taxpayer-funded institutions shouldn’t pay for courses and speakers whose premises are contentious and whose efforts won’t measurably improve the workforce.
Federal employees are free to explore social theory on their own time. On our dime, they should get on with their real job.
Originally published by the Washington Examiner
The post Taxpayers Shouldn’t Have to Fund State Department’s DEI Pseudoscience appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Democrats counting illegal immigrants in the United States census is "all about power," Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) said.
The post Exclusive — Sen. Bill Hagerty: Democrats Counting Illegals in Census ‘All About Power’ appeared first on Breitbart.
AOC became a member of Congress in 2019 but failed to pay dues until 2024, representing the completion of a gradual shift towards becoming a member of the Democrat establishment.
The post AOC Bends Knee to DCCC Establishment by Paying Dues for First Time appeared first on Breitbart.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says it is "preposterous" to suggest that President Joe Biden is importing millions of migrants to the United States to inflate political power in favor of Democrats.
The post DHS Chief Mayorkas: ‘Preposterous’ to Suggest Biden Importing Migrants to Create Permanent Democrat Majority appeared first on Breitbart.
Experts, including two former diplomats representing America at the United Nations, warned Congress in a hearing on Wednesday that China is amassing power within the U.N. structure to "blunt criticism, shut out and stigmatize Taiwan, plug its Belt and Road Initiative, and dilute norms that might be used to hold it accountable."
The post Experts to Congress: China Is Hijacking Key U.N. Agencies to Advance Communist Agenda appeared first on Breitbart.
Rep. Austin Scott, a Republican from Georgia who has criticized conservatives and is campaigning actively against the House Freedom Caucus chairman, is Speaker Mike Johnson’s choice for a newly vacant seat on the powerful Rules Committee.
Scott’s selection Wednesday infuriated conservatives on Capitol Hill. The Daily Signal spoke with several lawmakers and staffers whose reactions ranged from shock to disappointment that Johnson, R-La., would pick someone who is openly trying to unseat one of the House’s most prominent conservatives.
“This the wrong person for the wrong role at the wrong time,” a Republican member of Congress told The Daily Signal.
By picking Scott for the Rules Committee, one of the oldest and most powerful in the House of Representatives, Johnson revealed whom he trusts to determine floor activity and advance the speaker’s agenda.
“It’s hard to see Johnson’s move here as anything except needing an attack dog against conservatives,” said a former Republican staffer, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “You get the impression he’s going to use Austin Scott to help as a blockade on the Rules Committee and throughout the [Republican] conference. That’s the signal it sends.”
Johnson’s staff acknowledged The Daily Signal’s request for comment, but did not provide a response.
Scott, a close ally of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., sought the speaker’s job in October in an ill-fated run against Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
At the time of McCarthy’s ouster as speaker, Scott issued a statement calling the eight members who voted to remove McCarthy “nothing more than grifters who have handed control of the House to the Democratic Party in the name of their own glory and fundraising.”
Scott continued, “There is nothing principled about what they did, and Republican leadership will have to decide to either hold these members accountable or lose the faith of the rest of the conference.”
Months later, he took aim at one of the eight in particular: Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Scott donated to Good’s primary challenger, John McGuire, in Virginia’s 5th Congressional District. Last month, Scott was a featured guest at a McGuire fundraiser.
Despite Scott’s actions, Johnson handpicked him for a coveted seat on the powerful Rules Committee.
“Speaker Johnson keeps saying, ‘We’re on the same team, knock it off, please stop this.’ But he’s not actually doing anything to stop it,” a Republican staffer told The Daily Signal. “Now, Austin Scott, one of the guys who started this civil war on the primary campaign trail, is put on the Rules Committee. The speaker isn’t ending the war, he’s escalating it by rewarding people going after conservatives.”
And while Scott’s public actions have revealed his contempt for conservatives, lawmakers and staff said he is even more hostile to them in private settings.
“He’s got a short fuse and a hot temper,” another Republican member said of Scott. “Quite honestly, he doesn’t have the temperament to be a legislator.”
Scott’s communications director declined to make him available for an interview with The Daily Signal and instead pointed to his brief statement on X.
It is our sworn duty as members of Congress to govern, and I look forward to serving on the Rules Committee to help advance legislation that benefits the American people.
— Rep. Austin Scott (@AustinScottGA08) April 11, 2024
Known as the “speaker’s committee,” the Rules Committee includes nine Republicans and four Democrats. One of those seats became vacant this week when Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., won the gavel for the House Appropriations Committee.
Two members of the House Freedom Caucus—Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., and Chip Roy, R-Texas—currently serve on the Rules Committee with another conservative-leaning member, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. Their three votes, combined with four Democrats, are enough to sink the speaker’s plans.
After years of being shut out of the Rules Committee—and any semblance of negotiation over its membership—conservatives scored seats on the panel as part of a deal with McCarthy, resulting in his election to speaker in January 2023.
Unlike when McCarthy negotiated with members, Johnson instead moved swiftly without consulting conservatives about Scott’s selection.
“It is the speaker’s committee, and he can do whatever he wants with it. But in a one-seat majority, there should be a conversation,” a GOP staffer told The Daily Signal. “You talk to people about who’s interested, who might be a good fit, who might be a productive addition on the Rules Committee.”
A former Republican staffer described it as a curious move on Johnson’s part.
“You already have conservatives angry at you for a variety of reasons,” the former staffer said. “You have a one-seat majority. You have a pending motion to vacate [the speaker]. It’s not exactly the time to poke the bear.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., filed a motion to vacate March 22, but has not yet forced a vote. If it’s successful, Johnson would lose the speaker’s job, just as McCarthy did before him.
“Speaker Johnson lives in peril every day for his job depending on what he does,” a Republican member said. “It’s a dicey situation. It appears to me that there are other candidates who are interested in being speaker in the new term.”
Since joining Congress in 2011, Scott has focused his attention on serving the rural Georgia district he represents. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Agriculture Committee. He has a lifetime score of 77% on Heritage Action’s Scorecard.
Scott also has developed a reputation among conservatives on Capitol Hill, according to lawmakers and staff who spoke to The Daily Signal.
“Austin Scott is a hothead, a notorious hothead,” a Republican staffer said. “He frequently loses his temper inside conference meetings with other members. He’s threatened, berated, cursed out members.”
Scott’s decision to endorse Good’s primary opponent, therefore, didn’t necessarily come as a surprise. However, it did anger conservatives, particularly because Johnson has privately counseled GOP members not to engage in primaries between fellow Republicans. The speaker recently made another appeal at GOP lawmakers’ retreat last month in West Virginia.
“Austin Scott endorsed Bob Good’s primary challenger, attended a fundraiser with him,” a Republican staffer said. “Mike Johnson, repeatedly for several weeks, has lectured the conference about what he calls the hot war on the campaign trail with primaries against incumbent Republicans. The moderates started this by going after Bob Good.”
Good, who boasts a 99% lifetime score on Heritage Action’s Scorecard, joined the House in 2021 after knocking off an incumbent Republican. He took over as chairman of the House Freedom Caucus in January.
Scott is one of at least six House Republicans who are backing Good’s opponent. Others include House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers, R-Ala., and Reps. Jen Kiggans, R-Va.; Ryan Zinke, R-Mont.; Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.; and Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas.
“Conservatives were appealing to the speaker to end the civil war before it got out of hand,” a Republican member told The Daily Signal. “And when he refused to, we let everyone know that we’re not going to take all the casualties.”
That’s led some conservative members to make their own endorsements against moderate Republicans.
Good, for example, is backing GOP challenger Derrick Evans in West Virginia’s 1st District against incumbent Rep. Carol Miller, R-W.Va., a leader of the moderate Republican Main Street Caucus. Its affiliated PAC, the Republican Main Street Partnership, is actively spending money against Good.
Notably, Johnson has withheld his own endorsement from Good, whose primary election is June 18. A spokesman for the speaker’s political operation did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.
The post Speaker Johnson’s Choice for Key House Committee Sparks Backlash appeared first on The Daily Signal.
House Speaker Mike Johnson had an impressive fundraising haul in his first full quarter as Speaker, raking in $20 million, per his office.
The post Speaker Johnson Bags North of $20 Million in Full First Fundraising Quarter appeared first on Breitbart.
Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, left Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas stumbling during a Wednesday hearing by rhetorically asking him what powers Congress had stripped him of to enforce the border.
Mayorkas testified during a hearing of the House Appropriations’ homeland security subcommittee titled “Budget Hearing: Fiscal Year 2025 Request for the Department of Homeland Security.” Cloud questioned Mayorkas about whether he lacked the power and authorization to secure the U.S.-Mexico border due to congressional action since he took office.
“Could you speak to any authorities that Congress has removed from you or the president since taking office?” Cloud asked Mayorkas, in reference to claims by President Joe Biden that he is unsure whether he has the power to take certain steps to prevent illegal immigration. Biden said he was “examining” what powers he had to close the border during a Univision interview that aired Tuesday.
“Has Congress removed any authorities from you or the president since taking office?” Cloud asked as Mayorkas stammered in response.
“That is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question,” Cloud added. “Why are you filibustering? I asked you a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.”
Biden reversed numerous policies initiated by his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, during his first days in office. Mayorkas has claimed that the border is secure on several occasions, despite U.S. Customs and Border Protection reporting more than 6.6 million encounters with illegal immigrants since the start of fiscal year 2021.
“You have approximately a 20% larger budget than Trump had,” Cloud said. “The president has made the point that he can’t secure the border, he can’t get down to it, because he is waiting on Congress to move, and I just point that out to belay that and to point out the truth, the fact that he has every single authority as President Trump, he has more resources at his disposal than President Trump, yet he’s done everything he can to undermine the security of our border.”
Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation
The post ‘Why Are You Filibustering?’: Mayorkas Stumbles Over Answer When Asked What Powers He Lacks to Enforce Border appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Kyiv will lose the war against Russia if the U.S. fails to approve military aid to battle Moscow's invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday.
The post Zelensky Warns U.S. Congress: Meet Ukraine Military Aid Demands or Russia Wins appeared first on Breitbart.
DEI (racial and other quotas) is intrinsically evil. At The Hill, Matt Cole and Chris Nicholson reveal a shocking, practical downside to DEI hysteria: “DEI killed the CHIPS Act.”
The issue is critical because Taiwan now produces 90% of the world’s advanced microchips, and China has indicated its intention to annex Taiwan in the near future. So the CHIPS Act sought to incentivize chip production in the U.S. Unfortunately, that isn’t what is happening.
Handouts abound. There’s plenty for the left—requirements that chipmakers submit detailed plans to educate, employ, and train lots of women and people of color, as well as “justice-involved individuals,” more commonly known as ex-cons. There’s plenty for the right—veterans and members of rural communities find their way into the typical DEI definition of minorities. …
***
Because equity is so critical, the makers of humanity’s most complex technology must rely on local labor and apprentices from all those underrepresented groups, as [the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company] discovered to its dismay.Tired of delays at its first fab, the company flew in 500 employees from Taiwan. This angered local workers, since the implication was that they weren’t skilled enough. With CHIPS grants at risk, TSMC caved in December, agreeing to rely on those workers and invest more in training them. A month later, it postponed its second Arizona fab.
Now TSMC has revealed plans to build a second fab in Japan. Its first, which broke ground in 2021, is about to begin production. TSMC has learned that when the Japanese promise money, they actually give it, and they allow it to use competent workers. TSMC is also sampling Germany’s chip subsidies, as is Intel.
It isn’t only TSMC that is being stymied by DEI:
Intel is also building fabs in Poland and Israel, which means it would rather risk Russian aggression and Hamas rockets over dealing with America’s DEI regime. Samsung is pivoting toward making its South Korean homeland the semiconductor superpower after Taiwan falls.
In short, the world’s best chipmakers are tired of being pawns in the CHIPS Act’s political games. They’ve quietly given up on America. …
[C]hipmakers have to make sure they hire plenty of female construction workers, even though less than 10 percent of U.S. construction workers are women. They also have to ensure childcare for the female construction workers and engineers who don’t exist yet. They have to remove degree requirements and set “diverse hiring slate policies,” which sounds like code for quotas. They must create plans to do all this with “close and ongoing coordination with on-the-ground stakeholders.”
No wonder Intel politely postponed its Columbus fab and started planning one in Ireland.
Access to microchips is a national security issue, as well as being fundamental to a modern economy. And yet Congressional majorities care more about DEI shibboleths and feeding pork to their constituencies than about American security and prosperity. Of course, that isn’t really an irony. The whole point of DEI is hating America, and if it imperils our security and our prosperity, so much the better.
Vaunce News 
