Connect with us

Politics

Column: Trump’s improv approach to policymaking doesn’t actually make policy

Published

on

Column: Trump’s improv approach to policymaking doesn’t actually make policy

Democrats’ caterwauling this week after a few of their senators caved to end the government shutdown couldn’t completely drown out another noise: the sound of President Trump pinballing dumb “policy” ideas as he flails to respond to voters’ unhappiness that his promised Golden Age is proving golden only for him, his family and his donors.

On social media (of course) and in interviews, the president has been blurting out proposals that are news even to the advisors who should be vetting them first. Rebates of $2,000 for most Americans and pay-downs of federal debt, all from supposed tariff windfalls. (Don’t count on either payoff; more below.) New 50-year mortgages to make home-buying more affordable (not). Docked pay for air traffic controllers who didn’t show up to work during the shutdown, without pay, and $10,000 bonuses for those who did. (He doesn’t have that power; the government isn’t his family business.) Most mind-boggling of all, Trump has resurrected his and Republicans’ long-buried promise to “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

It’s been five years since he promised a healthcare plan “in two weeks.” It’s been a year since he said he had “concepts of a plan” during the 2024 campaign. What he now calls “Trumpcare” (natch) apparently amounts to paying people to buy insurance. Details to come, he says, again.

With all this seat-of-the-pants policymaking, Trump only underscores the policy ignorance that’s been a defining trait since he first ran for office. No other president in memory put out such knee-jerk junk that’s easily discounted and mocked.

In his first term, Trump didn’t learn how to navigate the legislative process, and thus steer well-debated ideas into law. He didn’t want to. Even more in his second term, Trump avoids that deliberative democratic process, preferring rule by fiat and executive order (even if the results don’t outlast your presidency, or they fizzle in court). For Trump, ideas don’t percolate, infused with expertise and data. They pop into his head.

Advertisement

But diktats are not always possible, as the shutdown dramatized when Republicans couldn’t agree with Democrats on the must-pass legislation to keep the government funded.

With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress (and arguably the Supreme Court: see recent decisions siding with the Trump administration to block SNAP benefits), the Democrats were never going to actually win the shutdown showdown — not if winning meant forcing Republicans to agree to extend health insurance tax credits for millions of Americans. Expanding healthcare coverage has never been Republicans’ priority. Tax cuts are, mainly for the wealthy and corporations, and Republicans pocketed that win months ago with Trump’s big, ugly bill, paid for mainly by cuts to Medicaid.

Yet Democrats won something: They shoved the issue of spiraling healthcare costs back onto politics’ center stage, where it joins the broader question of affordability in an economy that doesn’t work for the working class. Drawing attention to the cruel priorities of Trump 2.0 is a big reason that I and many others supported Democrats forcing a shutdown, despite the unlikelihood of a policy “W.” (I did not support the Senate Democrats’ caving just yet, not so soon after Democrats won bigger-than-expected victories in last week’s off-year elections on the strength of their fight for affordability, including health insurance.)

The fight isn’t over. The Senate will debate and vote next month on extending tax credits for Obamacare that otherwise expire at year’s end, making coverage unaffordable for millions of people. Even if the Democrats win that vote — unlikely — the subsidies would be DOA in the House, a MAGA stronghold. What’s not dead, however, is the issue of rising insurance premiums for all Americans. It’s teed up for the midterm election campaigns.

Such pocketbook issues have thrown Trump on the defensive. The result is his string of politically tone-deaf remarks and unvetted, out-of-right-field initiatives.

Advertisement

On Monday night, having invited Fox News host Laura Ingraham into the White House for an interview and a tour of his gilt-and-marble renovations, he pooh-poohed her question about Americans’ anxiety about the costs of living with this unpolitic rejoinder: “More than anything else, it’s a con job by the Democrats.” When Ingraham, to her credit, reminded Trump that he’d slammed President Biden for “saying things were great, and things weren’t great,” Trump stood his shaky ground, sniping: “Polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we’ve ever had.” (False.)

On Saturday, Trump had posted that Republicans should take money “from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate” Obamacare. He told Ingraham, “Call it Trumpcare … anything but Obamacare.” Healthcare industry experts pounced: Such direct payments could allow younger, healthy people to get cheaper, no-frills coverage, but would leave the insurance pools with disproportionately more ailing people and, in turn, higher costs.

As for Trump’s promised $2,000 rebates and reductions in the $37 trillion federal debt, he posted early Sunday and again on Monday that “trillions of dollars” from tariffs would make both things possible soon. On Tuesday night, he sent a fundraising email: “Would you take a TARIFF rebate check signed by yours truly?”

Maybe if he’d talked to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who professed ignorance about the idea on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, Trump would have learned that tariffs in the past year raised not trillions but $195 billion, significantly less than $2,000 rebates would cost. Not only would there be nothing to put toward the debt, but rebates would add $6 trillion in red ink over 10 years. That would put Trump just $2 trillion short of the amount of debt he added in his first term.

When Ingraham asked where he’d get the money to pay bonuses to air traffic controllers, Trump was quick with a nonanswer: “I don’t know. I’ll get it from someplace.” And when she told him the 50-year mortgage idea “has enraged your MAGA friends,” given the potential windfall of interest payment for banks, Trump was equally dismissive: “It’s not even a big deal.”

Advertisement

Not a big deal: That’s policymaking, Trump-style.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Politics

Video: Dick Cheney Is Honored at Washington National Cathedral

Published

on

Video: Dick Cheney Is Honored at Washington National Cathedral

new video loaded: Dick Cheney Is Honored at Washington National Cathedral

transcript

transcript

Dick Cheney Is Honored at Washington National Cathedral

An unusual mix of Democrats and Republicans came together on Thursday to pay tribute to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who led an aggressive response against terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001. Missing from the crowd were President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, whom Mr. Cheney had publicly opposed in his later years.

“This was a vice president totally devoted to protecting the United States and its interests. There was never any agenda or angle beyond that. You did not know Dick Cheney unless you understood his greatest concerns and ambitions were for his country.” “He knew that bonds of party must always yield to the single bond we share as Americans. For him, a choice between defense of the Constitution and defense of your political party was no choice at all.” “In our nation’s 246-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him.”

Advertisement
An unusual mix of Democrats and Republicans came together on Thursday to pay tribute to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who led an aggressive response against terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001. Missing from the crowd were President Trump and Vice President JD Vance, whom Mr. Cheney had publicly opposed in his later years.

By Jamie Leventhal

November 20, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Missouri attorney general takes new legal aim at mail-order abortion pills over safety concerns

Published

on

Missouri attorney general takes new legal aim at mail-order abortion pills over safety concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced Thursday she is expanding the state’s fight against mail-order abortion pills, targeting a recently approved generic version of mifepristone that she argues sends women to hospitals with “life-threatening complications” and is being pushed into the marketplace without “basic medical safeguards.”

The filing challenges the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Sept. 30 approval of a generic mifepristone produced by Evita Solutions, arguing that the drug’s risks are “well-documented and worsening with further study.”

The lawsuit alleges manufacturers have relied on “weakened safety standards” that were “originally designed to catch dangerous conditions such as ectopic pregnancies,” which can only be identified through an in-person medical exam.

“Mifepristone is sending women to the hospital with life-threatening complications, and yet drug companies continue pushing new versions of it into the market without basic medical safeguards,” Hanaway said. “Mail-order abortion drugs are dangerous when taken without in-person care, and Missouri will not stand by while manufacturers gamble with women’s lives.”

Advertisement

HAWLEY BLASTS FDA APPROVAL OF NEW ABORTION DRUG, CITES SAFETY AND TRUST CONCERNS

Catherine Hanaway speaks to reporters after Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe announced her appointment as the state’s next attorney general, Aug. 19, in Jefferson City, Mo. (AP Photo/David A. Lieb)

The case builds on Missouri’s multi-state challenge to what officials allege is the FDA’s “dismantling of critical safety protections” surrounding mifepristone.

Federal law has long banned the mailing of abortion drugs, yet distributors and telehealth networks have built a nationwide system that delivers the pills to women in every state, often without in-person medical screenings or follow-up care.

Missouri, joined by Kansas and Idaho, is asking the court to block the new approval, restore pre-2016 safety standards that required in-person medical evaluations and stop drugmakers and distributors from mailing abortion pills nationwide in violation of federal law.

Advertisement

FLORIDA CITES MAFIA LAW, HITS PLANNED PARENTHOOD WITH SUIT OVER CLAIM ABORTION PILL ‘SAFER THAN TYLENOL’

Misoprostol, left, and mifepristone abortion medication. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)

Hanaway pointed to the drug’s labeling, which notes that roughly 1 in 25 women who take chemical abortion drugs end up in the emergency room and many suffer hemorrhaging, infection or require surgery. She said complications are even more common when the pills come through the mail without medical oversight.

“No caring physician would call mifepristone ‘as safe as Tylenol,’” she said. “That claim was always false. Women are ending up in emergency rooms, and manufacturers know it. If the FDA is reevaluating the brand-name drug’s safety, then it needs to stop rubber-stamping new mail-order generic versions before more women are hurt.”

Hanaway’s filing comes as Republican lawmakers in Washington continue pressing the FDA to tighten oversight of abortion pills and restore safety guardrails rolled back in recent years.

Advertisement

ARREST WARRANT ISSUED FOR CALIFORNIA DOCTOR IN LOUISIANA ABORTION PILL CASE

Mifepristone tablets at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Iowa.  (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

During a recent press call, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., urged the FDA to “follow the science to put back safety guardrails” and questioned the agency’s partnerships with abortion-pill manufacturers, including Evita Solutions, the company behind the generic drug targeted in Hanaway’s lawsuit.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said he and other Republican senators have demanded answers from the FDA about its decision to approve the new drug but have yet to receive a response.

Advertisement

Evita Solutions did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Leo Briceno contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

In-state college tuition for California’s undocumented students is illegal, Trump suit alleges

Published

on

In-state college tuition for California’s undocumented students is illegal, Trump suit alleges

The Trump administration filed a federal suit Thursday against California and its public university systems, alleging its practice of offering in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants who graduate from California high schools is illegal.

The suit, which named Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the UC Board of Regents, the Cal State University Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for the California Community Colleges, also seeks to end some provisions in the California Dream Act, which in part allows students who lack documentation to apply for state-funded financial aid.

“California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This marks our third lawsuit against California in one week — we will continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

Higher education and state officials were not immediately available to comment.

Advertisement

The tuition suit targets Assembly Bill 540, which passed with bipartisan support in 2001 and offers in-state tuition rates to undocumented students who completed high school in California. The law also offers in-state tuition to U.S. citizens who graduated from California schools but moved out of the state before enrolling in college.

Between 2,000 and 4,000 students attending the University of California — with its total enrollment of nearly 296,000 — are estimated to be undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, are community college students.

The Trump administration’s challenge to California’s tuition statute focuses on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

Scholars have debated whether that law affects California’s tuition practices since AB 540 applies to citizens and noncitizens alike.

Thursday’s complaint was filed in Eastern District of California, and it follows similar actions the Trump administration has taken against Texas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma and Minnesota.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending