Trump Threatens Canada, Greenland, & Panama in 100-Minute Presser & Why Zuck Killed Meta Fact Checks
PDS Published 01/07/2025
-
For some 2025 ins and outs:
Out: The Gulf of Mexico.
In: The Gulf of America!
That is at least one of the many things Donald Trump said during a presser today, which was taking over the internet like wildfire.
And it focused on a number of things, but one of the most attention-grabbing clips was this:
“We’re going to be announcing, at a future date, pretty soon, we’re going to change — because we do most of the work there, and it is ours — we’re going to be changing – sort of the opposite of Biden where he is closing everything up, getting rid of $50-$60 trillion worth of assets — we’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.” (24:34-24:58)
“The Gulf of America, what a beautiful name. And it’s appropriate.” (25:03-25:07)
And as you can imagine, that clip is everywhere on Twitter right now.
But if you look at what a lot of major news outlets are leading with from this presser, many are focusing on Trump not ruling out military force in the Panama Canal and Greenland.
Right, the idea of taking over those places are not new to Trump, and when asked about it today we saw this:[]
“Let’s start, if we could, with your references to Greenland and the Panama Canal. Can you assure the world that, as you try to get control of these areas, you’re not going to use military or economic coercion?”
“No.”(32:07-32:25)
“I can’t assure you, you’re talking about Panama and Greenland, no I can’t assure you on either of those two. But I can say this, we need them for economic security.” (32:37-32:47)
“The Panama Canal is vital to our country. It’s being operated by China. China! And we gave the Panama canal to Panama, we didn’t give it to China. And they’ve abused it, they’ve abused that gift. It should have never been made by the way.” (32:58-33:12)
And he was asked about Greenland again later in the presser, saying:
“Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes.” (50:37-50:40)
“You have approximately 45,000 people there. People don’t even really know if Denmark has any legal right to it. (50:46-50:54)
Adding he would hit Denmark with high tariffs if it interfered with efforts to get Greenland to join the U.S.[]
And Trump also has his eyes on Canada.
“Are you also considering military force to annex Canada?” “No, economic force. Because Canada and the United States, that would really be something.” (53:57-54:07)
“Why are we supporting a country, 200 billion plus a year, our military is at their disposal, all of these other things, they should be a state.” (55:51-56:03)
Another moment making headlines from this was when he discussed the hostages, saying:
“If they’re not back by the time I am in office, all hell will break out in the middle east. And it will not be good for Hamas, and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone.” (44:50-45:00)
The press conference was over an hour long, so those are just some of the highlights and parts making the most headlines.
And as far as reactions, well, they are all over the place.
Many news outlets characterizing his statements as outright threats to countries like Denmark.[]
Some outlets running articles giving more context, the likes of Reuters publishing one titled: “Can Trump buy Greenland?”
And there noting that the country’s Prime Minister:
“who recently has stepped up a push for independence from Denmark, has repeatedly said the island is not for sale and that it is up to its people to decide their future.”
You had Democratic politicians pushing back against Trump for focusing on some of these issues, the likes of Rep. Hakeem Jeffries writing:
“House Democrats are focused on lowering the high cost of living in America. Not invading Greenland.”[]
Then, regarding his comments on Canada, you Justin Trudeau saying that:
“There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States. Workers and communities in both our countries benefit from being each other’s biggest trading and security partner.”[]
But this was pretty hot off the press this morning, I am sure more discourse is to come, and I would love to know your thoughts on it.
-
Is Mark Zuckerberg protecting free speech? Or is he bending the knee?
That’s what a lot of people are asking now that the Meta CEO has announced some absolutely massive changes to the way the company will be handling content moderation on its platforms.
Right, chief among them, Zuck announcing the company is ending its third-party fact-checking program in favor of a 'community notes' system similar to X, with the system set to be rolled out in the US only at first over the next couple of months.
“After Trump got elected in 2016 the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming arbiters of truth. Fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the US” (BYTE: 1:24-1:44)
And with that, it’s true, Meta launched its initial fact-checking system way back in 2016, shortly after Trump was elected.
It worked by running information on its platforms through third-party fact-checkers certified by the International Fact-Checking Network and the European Fact-Checking Standards Network.
With the program eventually involving more than 90 organizations that would fact-check posts in more than 60 languages.[]
In the US, for example, including groups you may have heard of such as PolitiFact and Factcheck.org.
And according to Meta’s website, the first step in the process would be identifying potential misinformation, which would be done automatically, by way of community input, or through the efforts of fact-checkers. []
Then, the next step would be reviewing the content, with fact-checkers labelling content false, altered, partly false, missing context, satire, or true. []
And from there, claims Meta, it would work to ensure that people are clearly informed about misinformation, that fewer people see misinformation in the first place, and that repeat offenders are dealt with in some way. []
Those fact-checking measures applied to any posts on Facebook, and they expanded to include Instagram in 2019 and Threads last year.
And notably, according to The New York Times, multiple studies have shown that interventions like Facebook’s fact-checks were effective at reducing belief in falsehoods and reducing how often such content is shared.[]
But at the same time, you have many saying fact-checking has become more politicized, with Axios being one outlet to share research saying this has contributed to a decline in the number of fact-checking sites globally.
In North America, for instance, the number of active fact-checking sites reportedly decreased from 94 to 90 from 2020 to 2023.[]
And with all that, we’ve already seen Zuck and Meta start backtracking on this issue before.
Right, last August, for example, Zuckerberg claiming that the Biden White House pressured Meta to “censor” COVID-19 content during the pandemic.
With others arguing that describing the administration's actions as censorship mischaracterized an effort that was actually about cracking down on harmful misinformation.
And now, with this latest announcement, Zuckerberg really seems to weighing in on this larger conversation rather than a specific case:
“There’s been widespread debate about potential harms from online content. Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more. A lot of this is clearly political, but there’s also a lot of legitimately bad stuff out there – drugs, terrorism, child exploitation – these are things that we take very seriously and I want to make sure we handle responsibly. So we built a lot of complex systems to moderate content, but the problem with complex systems is they make mistakes. Even if they accidentally censor just 1% of posts, that's millions of people, and we've reached a point where it's just too many mistakes and too much censorship. " (BYTE: 0:21-1:00).
And with that, the end of fact-checking? It’s just one of the changes meant to deal with this so-called “censorship” problem.
Right, for instance, Meta will reportedly stop limiting political content.
Zuckerberg also saying Meta will be removing restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are, according to him, “out of touch with mainstream discourse.”
And then, you also have him revealing that Meta’s trust and safety and content moderation teams would be moved from California to Texas.
With him saying that would “help remove the concern than biased employees are overly censoring content.” []
And on top of that, Meta will reportedly be refocusing its automated filters on scanning for only “illegal and high-severity” policy violations such as terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud, and scams –
Relying on users to report lower severity violations before it takes action.
With Zuck, notably, acknowledging the potential downside:
“The reality is that this is a tradeoff. It means we’re going to catch less bad stuff, but we’ll also reduce innocent people’s posts and accounts that we accidentally take down.” (BYTE: 2:57-3:06)
And notably, with all that, we’ve seen a fair bit of variation in the media’s coverage of this story.
Right, CNN, for example, emphasizing in a headline the fact that Zuck has acknowledged that more harmful content will appear on Meta platforms now.
But then, Fox News unsurprisingly painting a more positive picture, highlighting the idea that this is about free expression.
With another Fox News article documenting how many conservatives are celebrating this as a quote, “huge win for free speech.”
Another big thing, many outlets, including the likes of The New York Times and The Washington Post for example, are emphasizing the timing of this decision, which comes less than two weeks before Trump is set to take office.
And notably, there, Zuck himself seemed to suggest the outcome of the election played a role:
“The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards, once again, prioritising speech. So we're gonna get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression on our platforms.” (BYTE: 0:41-1:12)
And with that, Zuckerberg also said Meta would work with the incoming Trump administration to promote free speech around the world, though it’s not clear exactly what he meant:
"We're going to work with President Trump to push back on governments around the world that are going after American companies and pushing to censor more.”
“The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the U.S. government, and that's why it's been so difficult over the past four years, when even the U.S. government has pushed for censorship. By going after us and other American companies, it has emboldened other governments to go even further." (BYTE: 3:52-4:02, 4:24-4:42)
And with that, Zuckerberg cited Europe, for example, as one place with, quote, “an ever increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship and making it difficult to build anything innovative.”
Also tying in the backlash Elon Musk is facing in Europe right now, which we talked about yesterday, with many leaders criticizing his influence and pressure mounting for the EU to do something about it.
And with that, interestingly, you have the Wall Street Journal saying Meta’s decision to remove restrictions on certain types of speech echoes the approach taken by Musk after he bought X.[]
With Musk actually resharing a post celebrating Meta’s decision to implement X-style community notes.
Also, regarding the timing of the Meta announcement, you have multiple outlets, NBC News in this case, describing the changes as part of a broader effort among CEOs and business leaders “currying favor” with the incoming Trump administration. []
Right, to that point Meta, along with several other tech companies, for example, have all donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.
Also, regarding Meta specifically, you had Zuckerberg dining with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, in November.
With the company now recently appointing Republican Joel Kaplan to lead its policy team, as well as announcing that UFC's Dana White, a long-time supporter of Trump, would join its board.
And with all that, there’s a lot more we could talk about with this topic.
There’s also everything outside of traditional media coverage, where you see a lot of people raising concerns about the possibility that Meta is doing this to appease Trump, that it will just make misinformation worse.
But of course, you also have a huge corner of the internet, praising the decision and seeing it as a win for free speech.
So with that, I gotta pass the question off to you, what are your thoughts?
-
Be honest with me, how many push-ups do you think you can do in a single sitting?
For me, I can probably squeeze out about [X] before I’m kissing the floor.
Well how about 398?
Right, that’s not the number demanded by a Navy Seals academy, but rather a Texas high school.
With then Rockwall-Heath High School football head coach John Harrell [Pronounce 00:23] reportedly designing an offseason training program for his students a couple of years ago. [B roll, 00:23]
And reportedly for every infraction that any individual player made, the entire team had to do 16 push-ups. [Quote, find “entire team” and B roll, 00:06 - 00:23]
One for every game the team would need to win to win a championship. [Same B roll]
So according to students, even the smallest thing, like failing to clap on a whistle? 16 push-ups. [Same B roll and quote same link, find “clap”]
Having a foot over a starting line for exercises? 16 push-ups. [Same assets]
Simply performing exercises poorly? 16 push-ups. [Same assets]
Then, they said if they didn’t do the push-ups correctly, the coaches made them start over from zero. [Same assets]
So by the end of any session, they said the total number routinely approached or even exceeded a hundred.
Though unsurprisingly, since, you know, they’re teenage boys, not teenage mutant ninja turtles,
Most students reportedly ended up doing modified push-ups or planking by the end, according to an investigation by the school district. [Quote same link, find “plank”]
But then, on January 9, 2023, the students reportedly racked up dozens of infractions, translating into not 100, not 200, but 398 push-ups. [Quote same link, find “perform 398”]
With the entire exercise reportedly taking about 40 grueling minutes. [Same quote]
After that day, however, head coach Harrell stopped his routine, reportedly because some of his players described swelling muscles and dark colored urine. [Quote same link, find “urine”]
Which, as it turned out, are symptoms of a potentially life-threatening condition known as rhabdomyolysis [Pronounce 00:03].
Right, it’s caused by overexertion, leading your muscles to break down, releasing by-products into the bloodstream that can damage your kidneys. [B roll, 01:01]
With between 10 and 40% of cases ending in kidney failure, according to a National Institutes of Health review. [Quote, find “40 percent”]
Now at this high school, investigators identified 26 students who presented symptoms of rhabdomyolysis. [Quote same link, find “26”]
With a physician who reviewed students’ medical records reportedly finding 12 who met the criteria for a diagnosis. [Same quote]
And some unknown number of them reportedly had to be hospitalized.
So as you’d expect, Harrell was put on administrative leave shortly afterward and resigned in March 2023. [Headline]
With investigators writing that he did not consult with a certified strength and conditioning coach while developing his plan. [Quote, find “consult”]
And on top of that he had reportedly been reminded not to assign any “punitive and corporal” activities to his players by his athletic director in a 2021 notice. [Same quote]
So that brings us to this latest news, with the parent of one student who supposedly suffered rhabdomyolysis suing Harrell and 12 other former and current assistant coaches. [Headline same link]
Though it’s unclear how liable they actually are under Texas law, since they enjoy some protections working in their official capacity as school employees.
But ultimately that’ll have to be sorted out in court, so until then, I’ll pass the question off to you: what’s your reaction here?
Especially if you’ve experienced the toxic culture at many high schools where you’re bullied for being weak or not manly if you don’t push your body past its limits.
Links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/01/06/football-coach-lawsuit-pushups/
Visit SeatGeek and use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes!
-
Mark your calendars: January 6, 2025 was the day we found out that bird flu claimed its first human victim in the United States. [Headline]
With the Louisiana Department of Health reporting that a patient who was over 65 years old and had underlying medical conditions died after contracting H5N1, the first such fatality recorded in the U.S. [Quote same link, find “65” and Image]
Right, doctors believe they contracted the virus from a backyard flock or wild birds. [Same quote]
And they’re reportedly the same person who was the first to report a severe case of bird flu in the country last month.
Now for some context, this isn’t the first fatality if we look globally.
Right, there have been about 500 deaths reported in the past 20 years, most of them in Southeast Asia. [Quote, find “500”]
Which doesn’t sound like a whole lot, but when you consider that there have only been less than a thousand recorded cases in that time, that’s about a 50% death rate. [Quote, find “950”]
Now so far, the strains circulating in the United States have mostly resulted in mild symptoms.
And there’s no evidence right now that it can transmit from human to human, so if you’re not hanging around animals, you’re probably good for the time being. [B roll, 00:08 - 00:31]
Right, of the 66 cases reported last year, almost all of them worked on farms with cows and poultry. [Quote, find “66” and same B roll]
And even if it does start transmitting between humans, bird flu is relatively well studied, so it’ll be easier to develop an effective vaccine for it. [Image]
All of which is why the CDC insists that the risk to the general public is still considered low. [Quote, find “considered low”]
But with that said, there are also some reasons to be at least a little concerned.
Namely the fact that viral samples from the Louisiana patient reportedly carried mutations that in theory might help it infect people more easily. [Headline]
With the CDC adding that the mutations were not present in virus samples taken from the backyard flock, suggesting they developed inside the human patient. [Quote, find “present”]
And that person’s not alone; right, one of the mutations was also reportedly found in a 13-year-old Canadian girl. [Quote same link, find “Canadian”]
With her case reportedly becoming severe, escalating from pink eye to a fever and coughing to acute respiratory distress syndrome. [Quote, find “pink eye”]
Leading the doctors to put her into intensive care, with her fighting for her life for weeks, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. [Quote same link, find “fighting”]
This even though she reportedly had no underlying medical conditions and was of course young. [Quote same link, find “underlying”]
So cases like these raise the spectre of a new strain mutating to become more deadly or more transmissible, or both.
With one doctor telling NBC News:
[Clip, 01:36 - 01:52] Caption: “The human-to-human transmission piece is what we’re looking for to make it easier to give to others. We do not have any evidence of that case, although this case in Louisiana signals that the virus is mutating in a way where it could be possible. So nothing about a pandemic today, but that’s what we’re watching for.”
But unfortunately, bird flu’s not the only scary disease we’re talking about today.
Because if you go online, you’ll see a lot of reports right now about a virus you’ve probably never heard of before spiking in China. [Image]
Right, it’s called human metapneumovirus [Meta-new-mo-virus], or just HMPV for short. [Image]
And we don’t have reliable data on the number of cases there right now, but the CDC is closely monitoring the situation. [Headline]
With videos of crowded hospital rooms getting passed around on Weibo [Way-bo], sparking fears of a new outbreak.
Which, um, yeah, sound familiar?
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:04] Caption: “In Central China, a man has died following an outbreak of an unknown pneumonia-like virus.”
But before you go running for that three-year-old stockpile of masks in your closet, let me dispel your fears.
HMPV is very, very different from COVID-19.
Right, first of all, it’s not novel.
Right, researchers say it’s been circulating in humans for at least 60 years; in fact, you’ve probably already had it.
And that’s because it’s one of several respiratory infections that go around every winter; you get it, you might not even know what it is or care, and then it passes.
So experts say a spike in cases of HMPV and other acute respiratory infections is normal for this time of year. [Quote, find “time of year”]
With a doctor at UC Davis explaining that it’s pretty similar to RSV, which you’re more likely familiar with.
[Clip, 00:10 - 00:18] Caption: “Very similar to RSV. It just causes a little bit different symptoms and infects at different ages and a little different time of year.”
In fact it’s so similar that researchers are trying to develop a vaccine that protects against both viruses in a single shot. [Quote same link, find “both viruses”]
Now of course if you’re an infant, elderly or immunocompromised, or if you have preexisting conditions, you’re at greater risk of a severe case.
But in higher income countries, death is very rare.
So that raises the question, why all the panic from news and social media?
Well, some think it’s a result of that collective shock we all experienced when the coronavirus took us by surprise in 2020.
With a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security telling The Washington Post:
“There’s just this tendency post-covid to treat every infectious-disease anything as an emergency when it’s not. You wouldn’t probably be calling me in 2018 about this.” [Quote]
But if you’re still worried, you can protect yourself in basically the same ways that you do for the cold, the flu and the coronavirus.
Wash your hands, ventilate your air, and stay away from nasty motherfuckers coughing on the subway.
And then as for bird flu, just make sure you pasteurize your milk, cook your meat properly, and minimize your contact with birds, poultry and cattle.
Also, getting your seasonal flu shot can’t hurt.
Because even though it doesn’t protect against bird flu, and a bird flu vaccine isn’t available to the general public, staying generally healthy helps protect against infection.
Plus, if you’re unlucky enough to get infected with bird flu and seasonal flu at the same time, that could give the bird flu a greater opportunity to mutate.
With it potentially even swapping genes with the seasonal flu, stealing the latter’s powers of transmission. [Quote, find “swap”]
But we’re not gonna let that happen, right? Because we’re a country that believes in vaccines and reasonable public health precautions, right? Right?
Links:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/health/hmpv-virus-china.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/06/health/bird-flu-death-louisiana.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/01/06/hmpv-metapneumovirus-china-risk-low/#
-
2 bodies were found on a JetBlue plane!
Right, last night, employees at Fort Lauderdale airport in Florida were doing a routine post-flight check on a plane that had come in from New York.
And what they found was the bodies of two people in the compartment for the landing gear. [] []
According to the local sheriff’s office, paramedics declared both people dead at the scene and both the homicide and crime scene units are currently investigating exactly what happened. []
With a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office saying that while both people appeared to be men, their identities right now are unknown and autopsies are planned to find out how they died. []
And JetBlue says that the question of how exactly these people got onto the plane in the first place is currently under investigation, as well - saying in a statement,
“This is a heartbreaking situation, and we are committed to working closely with authorities to support their efforts to understand how this occurred.” []
In their reporting CNN cites FlightAware data - saying that this particular plane, an Airbus A320 jet, was in service all day.
Flying from Kingston, Jamaica around 1:00 in the morning to New York then from New York to Salt Lake City and from there back to New York before ending the day in Fort Lauderdale. []
But the crazy part here is that this is the second time in a matter of weeks that a body has turned up the wheel well of a plane.
On Christmas Day, a body was found in the wheel compartment of a United Airlines Boeing 787-10 after flying from Chicago to Hawaii.
And the New York Times reports that people have been trying to use the wheel wells and landing gear compartments to travel for free for a long time. []
Often, though, those attempts have proven deadly - they could be crushed by the landing gear when it’s tucked back into the plane, they could fall out when the landing gear comes out. []
Not to mention that those compartments aren’t meant for people - so they aren’t pressurized or heated.
Which is a problem when you’re at altitude and the temperatures are well below freezing - in fact, the Times says that most stowaways die of hypothermia. []
And although we don’t know for sure yet whether the JetBlue guys were stowaways, that problem is becoming more and more pressing for airlines, even inside planes.
Like Thanksgiving week when a woman without a ticket boarded a Delta flight and made it from New York to Paris before she was arrested.
Or a few weeks later when someone tried to hitch a ride on another Delta flight from Seattle to Honolulu.
In that case, they were found while the plane was taxiing for takeoff. []
And this presents serious risk, according to a former Department of Transportation Inspector General, who told CNN,
“This keeps happening. People are getting onto the airport property and getting into an aircraft, and it poses a huge security danger for the aircraft.”
“These people were apparently just trying to get some place, but it could have easily been someone attempting to attack aviation.” []
For now, we’re going to have to keep our eyes peeled for more information regarding the JetBlue incident.
And how airlines are going to handle this problem going forward.
In the meantime, let me know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
-
President-elect Trump and Congressional Republicans are pushing new legislation to combat illegal immigration and beef up border security…
All of which comes as Mexico and the Biden administration have scaled up their own immigration enforcement so much that arrests at the southern border are lower than when Trump first left office.
Right, some of the numbers Reuters received show that 47,000 migrants were arrested at the Mexican border in December.
That’s far less than the 250,000 just a year prior, and 24,000 less than when Trump was leaving office. []
You probably noticed that during Biden’s first years in office there was a massive spike, but since then there’s been a crack down alongside deals with Mexico and other nations to help.
Right, part of that strategy was to prevent things like the massive migrant caravans that made their way from Mexico to the US border at their source: southern Mexico.
According to a former chief of Mexico’s immigration agency, this means “dispersion and exhaustion.”
Right, according to reports from outlets like the Associated Press, Mexican authorities will let the caravans form in the South.
Then they’ll let them walk for a few days to a week and when they’re finally tired they’ll swoop in with offers of help.
This includes bus tickets to other areas of the country where their immigration status will then be reviewed.
One Venezuelan migrant described it to the Associated Press like this:
“Immigration (officials) told us they were going to give us a permit to transit the country freely for 10, 15 days and it wasn’t like that.”
“They left us dumped here without any way to get out. They won’t sell us (bus) tickets, they won’t sell us anything.”[]
One such destination is the struggling tourist city of Acapulco, which had about 100 migrants dropped off at the city recently.
This has angered some of the migrants who claim they specifically negotiated to be taken to cities with work opportunities, which Acapulco lacks.[]
And across Mexico it’s a similar story, with small groups of migrants taken from caravans and dispersed -- albeit far from the US border -- to help reduce their concentration.
This tactic has been met with mixed reactions.
President Claudia Sheinbaum has hailed the approach as a humanitarian “win” as it allows migrants to leave the southern parts of the country with help from authorities.[]
But critics claim that it makes migrants even more vulnerable to the cartels that already target them -- especially because they are sometimes dropped off in dangerous cartel territories.
All of that being said, this hasn’t really changed the Republican stance that more needs to be done at the border as well as illegal migrants still in the US.
Which is why Congress -- which started its new session yesterday -- has hit the ground running, with the House *passing* the Laken Riley Act today. [broll of Congress starting]
That would make the bill, which is named after a nursing student who was murdered by an undocumented migrant, the first to be passed by the new Congress.
It’s mainly focused at giving state’s Attorneys General the power to sue the federal government if they can show that their states are being harmed because of a lack of immigration enforcement.
*And, very notably here, the legislation passed with broad bipartisan support from 48 Democrats, who joined all Republicans in supporting the bill.*
*And there has already been a version proposed in the Senate,* with the majority leader *working to put that up for a vote this Friday.*[]
However it might be a bit more of a fight in the Senate as eight Dems would need to sign on to pass the 60-vote hurdle.
*But we have seen at least one Democrat — Senator John Fetterman — signing on as a co-sponsor to the bill.*
*And it’s been reported that there are a few others who could potentially vote in favor as well.* []
And that’s just the first step towards fighting immigration that Congress wants to make.
There is also discussion about a large omnibus bill that would tackle border security, energy, and taxes.
Specifics are still up in the air and the Republican party is split into two groups about the best way to pass this.
Both want to use a reconciliation bill, which is a way for Congress to pass a bill as part of a “budget.”
Essentially they are saying that money allocated for the budget should be spent in x,y,z ways.
The benefit of this is that it’s pretty fast to pass a bill and only requires a simple majority.
In one camp you have Republican leaders like Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who is pushing for two reconciliation bills to be passed about the topic.[]
However, House Republicans seem to favor a single reconciliation bill.
And Trump himself has weighed in, saying yesterday on conservative talk radio: [@1:24:40]
“While I favor one bill, I also want to get everything passed. And there are some people that don’t necessarily agree with it, so I’m open to that also.”
“My preference is one big — as I say, one big beautiful bill. Now to do that takes longer. To submit it takes longer, actually.”
“So it’s a longer process, I would say. I’d live with that. To me it’s just a — it’s cleaner. It’s nicer.”
Trump also answered a question that a lot of people have wondered: what will happen to so-called “Dreamers?”
Right, these are people protected by DACA who often were brought to the US as children by their parents and have lived their entire lives here.
Well, Trump had tried to repeal DACA in 2017 but was stopped, and now he might be more open to them staying and telling Hewitt: @1:40:16
“I don’t think it has to be in that bill, but I’m okay talking about the dreamers. It’s been a long time.You know, everyone’s been talking about the dreamers. These are people who have been here since -- in many cases since birth -- they’ve been here many years. They were very young and now they’re middle aged people and in some cases they’re old people. It’s been talked about and I’m certainly open to talking about it.”
Which has gotten some push back from MAGA-aligned accounts on Twitter, which have said things like:
“Trump tells Hugh Hewitt he's willing to make a deal on Dreamers. All that does is encourage more to come and wait till the next amnesty. Trump is betraying the American worker and the communities overrun by illegal invaders.” []
Others were more open to the idea of letting Dreamers stay and saying:
“I think Trump is right to grant amnesty to dreamers on the condition that they immediately obtain citizenship. The reasoning is simple. They did not choose to come here illegally. They were brought here as children by adults. They grew up here, went to school here, work and pay taxes here. It's the only home they have ever known. Deporting them because an adult brought them here is not fair or right. They deserve a chance to be citizens. If they commit crimes or choose not to become citizens, then deport them. If not, let them be citizens.” []
That split isn’t too surprising though as something like 81% of Americans support citizenship for Dreamers.
And according to a Gallup poll from June 2024, a majority of Americans across both parties agree that Dreamers should be allowed to stay.[]
All that said we’ll have to wait and see what happens with this reconciliation bill.
As we can see from the Gallup poll that a majority of Americans think we need something to help secure the border -- as well as past votes -- it’s likely that we’ll see some kind of border package.
But what that could be is a wide-ranging, so I want to ask:
Do you think border reform is enough on its own?
Or do you think that answering questions like what to do with DACA recipients needs to happen sooner than later?
