Trump confirms $12 billion in aid for American farmers
At the round table in the White House office Donald Trump announced $12 billion in aid for American farmers. “We love our farmers,” the president said. “They are the backbone of our country.”
Trump also noted that China has committed to purchasing $40 billion of American soybeans. “I asked President Xi if he could even the score, and I think he will,” the president added.
The package comes as farmers – some of Trump's most loyal supporters – have expressed frustration over the rising costs of the president's sweeping tariffs as well as the fallout from escalating trade tensions with China.
Key events
In yet another conversation with Scott—this time on the subject of Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of this year—the president bluntly stated that he wants to “pay people.”
“I want to see money paid out to people who could go out and buy their own health care instead of paying insurance companies,” he said.
If the tax breaks expire, it would mean premium payments would more than double, according to KFF's analysis.
The President has repeatedly ridiculed ABC News. Rachel Scott Today. After she asked Trump if he would order Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to release video of the Sept. 2 “double strike” on a suspected drug ship, the president responded that “whatever it is, [Hegseth] decides I’m okay.”
When Scott continued to explain Trump about the alleged drug ships, the president snapped. “Let me tell you, you're a disgusting, terrible, really terrible reporter, and it's always the same with you,” he said.
Donald Trump continued to blame the Biden administration for inheriting high prices when he returned to office in January.
“I think prices are already coming down. I mean prices have come down significantly,” he said today at the White House. “Now inflation is essentially gone. We've normalized it and it will come down a little more. You don't want it to be deflation either. You have to be careful.”
President and Brooke Rollins The Secretary of Agriculture simply went back and forth explaining that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) would allocate $11 billion for the farm relief program and would “hold back” $1 billion for certain “specialty crops.”
Donald Trump further stated that “this money would not have been possible without tariffs.” However, the assistance program does not use tariff revenues, but rather USDA funding.
Trump confirms $12 billion in aid for American farmers
At the round table in the White House office Donald Trump announced $12 billion in aid for American farmers. “We love our farmers,” the president said. “They are the backbone of our country.”
Trump also noted that China has committed to purchasing $40 billion of American soybeans. “I asked President Xi if he could even the score, and I think he will,” the president added.
The package comes as farmers – some of Trump's most loyal supporters – have expressed frustration over the rising costs of the president's sweeping tariffs as well as the fallout from escalating trade tensions with China.
Former Trump lawyer resigns as chief prosecutor following court ruling
former lawyer for Donald Trump, Alina Habbaresigned as Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
Her statement was made after the appeal court. ruled last week that Hubba was unlawfully serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Garden State.. A panel of judges upheld the lower court's decision earlier this year.
“This decision will not weaken the Department of Justice and it will not weaken me,” Habba wrote in a statement. “Now my fight will spread throughout the country. While we wait for further review of the court's decision.”
She added that she will continue to serve as senior counsel to the attorney general. Pam Bondi.
“Make no mistake, you can take the girl out of New Jersey, but you can’t take New Jersey out of the girl,” Hubba concluded.
After a while we will hear Donald Trump at the White House. He is set to appear at a roundtable with the Treasury Secretary and Agriculture Secretary to unveil a new $12 billion package to support American farmers. We'll introduce you to the key phrases here.
Key Takeaways from Supreme Court Hearing on FTC Dismissal Case
After more than two hours of oral arguments in the high-stakes case of Slaughter v. Trump, the nation's highest court appeared poised to uphold a historic expansion of executive power, signaling support for Donald Trump's removal of independent board members who have been shielded from presidential whims for nearly a century.
At the heart of the issue is Trump's decision in March to fire Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) before the end of her term, despite a federal law designed to shield the agency from political interference.
John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under George W. Bush, told Reuters the case represents “one of the most important questions about the performance of the federal government in the last century.” “The future of the independence of the administrative state is in doubt,” he said.
The justices appeared to split party lines fairly firmly, with the 6-3 conservative wing — including the sometimes wavering vote of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — appearing to side with the Trump administration's argument that the president should be able to fire members of independent agencies and expressing skepticism about concerns raised by the other side that it could lead to a significant overhaul of the federal government.
Attorney General John D. Sauer has repeatedly argued that independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission are a “headless fourth branch of government” with limited government oversight and that, in general, “independent agencies are not accountable to the people.” He said a key 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey's Executioner, “must be overturned,” calling the decision “a decaying shell with bold and particularly dangerous claims.”
Regarding the 1935 precedent-setting decision, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that this historical precedent “has nothing to do with what the Federal Trade Commission looks like today.” The decision, he said, “was addressed to an agency that had very little, if any, executive power.” Justice Samuel Alito Also said he was skeptical about the far-reaching consequences of allowing the president to fire the heads of multi-member independent commissions. Justices Bret Kavanaugh, Roberts and Coney Barrett have also sought to distinguish between the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve, and appear likely to support continuing to protect the Fed from political interference.
The liberal justices, on the other hand, appeared sympathetic to lawyer Slaughter's warning that “there are tangible, real risks” in giving the president the power to fire independent agency heads. That meant “everything is on the chopping block,” Amit Agarwal said.
Sounding the alarm, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said independent agencies have existed throughout US history. “You're asking us to destroy the structure of government and strip Congress of its ability to protect the idea that government is better structured with some independent agencies,” she said. Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court should not ignore the “ground realities” of what its decisions do. “The result of what you want is for the president to have enormous, unchecked, unchecked power,” she told Sauer. “You are left with a president… with control over everything.”
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed doubt that increasing presidential powers is better for democracy, and stressed that concentrating so much power under presidential control would undermine problems that Congress says should be addressed by nonpartisan experts in independent agencies. “To have a president come in and fire all the scientists, doctors, economists and PhDs and replace them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is not really in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June next year.
Liberal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed doubt that increasing presidential power is better for democracy.
“You seem to think that there is something about the President that requires him to control everything within a framework of democratic accountability, when on the other hand we have Congress saying that we would like these particular agencies and officials to be independent of presidential control for the benefit of the people.– she told Sauer.
Jackson also stressed that concentrating so much power under the president's control would undermine the problems that Congress believes should be addressed. impartial experts in independent agencies.
So, for a President to come in and fire all the scientists, doctors, economists and PhDs and replace them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is not really in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.With.
And to expand on Sonia Sotomayor's comments about liberal justice that we reported earlier, she said independent agencies have existed throughout U.S. history and called on Sauer to explain why the court should make such sweeping changes to the structure of government.
Neither the king, nor parliament, nor the prime ministers of England at the time of its founding [of the United States] ever had unskilled removal ability.
You are asking us to destroy the structure of government. and deprive Congress of its ability to defend its idea that government is better structured with some independent agencies.
Earlier, liberal justice Elena Kagan said the court should not ignore the “ground realities” of what its decisions do. She told Sauer:
The result of what you want is that the President will have enormous, uncontrollable, uncontrollable power – not only carry out traditional enforcement, but also create laws through legislative and judicial frameworks.
What you're left with is president… with control over everythingincluding much of the lawmaking that happens in this country.
Sauer countered that the result would be for the president to “gain control of the executive branch that he is due and has under our Constitution.”
