Connect with us

Politics

Some Democrats Regret Their Scattered Responses to Trump’s Speech to Congress

Published

on

Some Democrats Regret Their Scattered Responses to Trump’s Speech to Congress

Democratic lawmakers on Sunday expressed disappointment at their party’s uncoordinated response to President Trump’s address to Congress last week, criticizing a colleague who staged a one-man protest during the speech by standing up and repeatedly shouting, “No mandate.”

The party’s leadership urged its members last week to stage a solemn and staid protest during Mr. Trump’s Tuesday speech, which was televised to nearly 37 million viewers. But Representative Al Green of Texas heckled the president and eventually was escorted out of the chamber.

The criticisms aimed at Mr. Green come as congressional Democrats debate how much to obstruct Mr. Trump’s agenda. With government funding set to expire after midnight Friday, Democrats must decide whether they will vote for legislation to avert a shutdown or refuse to do so while Mr. Trump is defunding and dismantling Congressionally approved federal programs.

On Sunday news shows, five Democratic lawmakers, including two progressives, made roundabout criticisms of Mr. Green. They pointed to the backlash his protest generated from both Republican and nonpartisan voters, as well as the media attention it created, which they saw as a distraction to Democrats’ messaging against Mr. Trump’s policies.

“That was a strategic mistake as well as something that just is not appropriate for the decorum of the U.S. House of Representatives,” Representative Tom Suozzi, Democrat of New York, said on CBS. Mr. Suozzi, whose district voted for Mr. Trump in 2024, was one of 10 Democrats who voted with Republicans to formally censure Mr. Green on Thursday. A censure is one of the highest forms of reprimand in the House.

Advertisement

Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, said on ABC that Democrats’ “lack of coordinated response” was “a mistake” and that his party should have focused on how the Republican plan to slash government spending may lead to cuts on Medicaid.

“That, to me, is the winning case to make,” he said.

Senator Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan, who delivered her party’s response to Tuesday’s address, acknowledged on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Mr. Green’s outburst was the result of “so much frustration” with the Trump administration.

But Ms. Slotkin quickly added that her approach differs strongly from Mr. Green’s.

“We can’t just be against something,” said Ms. Slotkin, a moderate Democrat who won in November in a state that Mr. Trump carried. “We have to be for something.”

Advertisement

Those lawmakers’ comments largely echoed the views of the Democratic leadership, which had hoped that a soberly delivered response on pocketbook and health care issues would become the news instead of Mr. Green’s dissent.

When pressed about Mr. Green’s protest, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the House minority leader, on Wednesday said that “the vast majority of Democrats showed restraint, listened to what the president had to say and of course we strongly disagree.”

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate minority leader, said on Wednesday that his party needed to focus on delivering messages around economic issues such as rising costs of food, housing and gas, and suggested that Mr. Green’s form of protest was not “the best way.”

Even Mr. Green’s progressive colleagues in Washington remained critical of him on Sunday.

Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey said on CNN that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle needed to hold themselves to a higher standard of decorum. Mr. Kim said he did not approve of “that type of behavior” and compared Mr. Green’s response to that of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia. Ms. Greene, a far-right firebrand, routinely interrupted former President Joseph R. Biden’s speeches to Congress.

Advertisement

Representative Ro Khanna of California went further and told Fox News that Tuesday’s scattered response was “not a good look” for Democrats and the fallout from Mr. Green’s behavior was “a distraction” from Democrats’ economic messaging.

“You can vigorously disagree as I do but still respect some of the institutions of our country and some of our traditions,” Mr. Khanna said.

On Thursday, Mr. Green defended his behavior and made the case for Democrats to engage in “righteous indignation and righteous incivility” in the face of Mr. Trump’s language, tactics and attempts to circumvent Congress.

“There comes a time when you cannot allow the president’s incivility to take advantage of our civility,” he said on the House floor after the censure vote, adding, “It is time for us to take that stand.”

Mr. Green, who is Black, also put his protest in the context of the civil rights movement.

Advertisement

“I remember what it took to get me in this House — I’m not here because I’m so smart,” he said. “I’m here because people made great sacrifices, and it was incivility, it was disruption.”

Maya C. Miller contributed reporting.

Politics

Video: Trump’s Counterterror Strategy Focuses on the Left

Published

on

Video: Trump’s Counterterror Strategy Focuses on the Left
President Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy focuses on “violent left-wing extremists,” as well as narcoterrorists and Islamic terror groups. Our White House correspondent Zolan Kanno-Youngs explains what it means.

By Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Gilad Thaler, Jon Miller, Stephanie Swart, Rafaela Balster, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov

May 29, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it

Published

on

Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Friday ordered that President Donald Trump’s name be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, said the iconic venue cannot be renamed without an act of Congress, ruling that the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees overstepped its “statutory bounds by unilaterally renaming” the building.

As part of his ruling, the Trump administration will be required to take down all physical signage bearing Trump’s name and eliminate any references to a “Trump-Kennedy Center” from official materials.

TRUMP KENNEDY CENTER’S BOARD VOTES UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE $257M RENOVATIONS AND TWO-YEAR CLOSURE

Advertisement

A sign is displayed on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts building. (Getty Images)

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper wrote. “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”

Roma Daravi, the Trump Kennedy Center vice president of public relations, said the board plans to appeal the decision. 

“We will review the decision carefully though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.” 

The ruling was part of a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

BOARD VOTES KENNEDY CENTER TO BE RENAMED ‘TRUMP-KENNEDY CENTER,’ LEAVITT SAYS

President Donald Trump stands in the presidential box during a tour of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., on March 17, 2025. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s name must be removed from he iconic venue. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

Cooper previously denied a request for a preliminary injunction filed by a preservation group to block the planned two-year closure of the Kennedy Center for a rehabilitation project. 

Trump secured $257 million from Congress as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address disrepair and deferred maintenance of the Kennedy Center, which critics say has been neglected and mismanaged before Trump intervened. 

The funds appropriated by Congress are spent on maintenance, repairs, security, and capital projects related to the building and site. 

Advertisement

Beatty, who serves as an ex officio member of the board, praised Friday’s ruling.

“Today’s ruling rightly affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename and close the Center have no basis in law,” Beatty said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. “The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump. He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution.”

Workers install Donald J. Trump signage above the existing Kennedy Center sign in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19, 2025. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump’s name was added to the venue last December following a unanimous decision by the board. In February 2025, Trump was elected chairman of the Kennedy Center board after removing 18 trustees appointed by former President Joe Biden.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump holds Situation Room meeting to decide on Iran deal

Published

on

Trump holds Situation Room meeting to decide on Iran deal

A framework agreement to end the U.S. war with Iran is all but settled, pending sign-off from the presidents of the two warring sides, President Trump said Friday, projecting optimism that a deal could finally be at hand.

Yet doubt cast a shadow over the diplomatic process entering the weekend as Trump faced a politically fraught decision to enter an agreement that would invariably require significant concessions to Tehran.

The negotiations have faced severe headwinds in recent days, with both sides accusing the other of violating a fragile ceasefire that has largely stopped the fighting since April.

On his Truth Social site, Trump said he had summoned his top aides to the White House Situation Room to decide on the deal.

The agreement would see an end to the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports and the removal of Iranian mines from the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway through which 20% of the world’s energy supply passes each day. The strait, Trump wrote, will reopen with “no tolls” for “unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions.”

Advertisement

And “Iran must agree that they will never have a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb,” Trump wrote, noting that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for nuclear weapons, “will be unearthed by the United States (which, it is agreed, is the only Country, along with China, with the mechanical capability of doing so!), in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”

“No money will be exchanged, until further notice,” he added.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said the deal would require Iran to disavow the continuation of its domestic nuclear program — a diplomatic feat never before achieved throughout a quarter-century of international negotiations over Iran’s nuclear work.

It is unclear whether Tehran would go that far. And Iran’s negotiators expressed defiance on Friday, stating that there was “no trust in guarantees or words” from the American side.

“No step will be taken before the other side acts first,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s Parliament. “We do not gain concessions through dialogue, but through missiles.”

Advertisement

It remains unclear when the Trump administration would ease sanctions on Iran, how extensive that relief would be, or what form it would take — questions that fueled Republican criticism of the Obama-era nuclear deal more than a decade ago.

The working diplomatic document would formally extend the existing ceasefire for 60 days, allowing for a more detailed negotiation to take place over Iran’s nuclear program. But the truce as it currently stands is on perilous ground. Iran launched a ballistic missile on Thursday at Kuwait, a close U.S. ally, after American forces took “defensive” actions against Iranian missile launchers and mine-laying boats it had launched in the strait.

The war has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has seen oil prices soar since the U.S. military, in partnership with Israel, launched its first strikes against Iran in February.

Bessent said he is hopeful that oil prices would drop quickly once an agreement is signed. But industry analysts say the effects of the war on the oil market could last for months, if not years, with the stability of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz now in question for commercial shippers.

While oil has dropped to under $100 a barrel, markets appeared skittish on Friday over the prospects for a deal, with mixed messages appearing to emerge out of the region.

Advertisement

It is also unclear whether a U.S. agreement with Iran would in any way bind Israel’s hands in its military operations, either in Iran or in Lebanon, where an Iranian proxy militia, Hezbollah, has vowed to keep up the fight.

Israel has ramped up strikes against Hezbollah targets in recent days, jeopardizing a delicate ceasefire negotiated with the Lebanese government, a deal encouraged by the Trump administration in order to grease the wheels for its talks with Tehran.

Trump has been uncharacteristically silent on the prospects of an agreement in recent days, expressing cautious optimism in limited exchanges with reporters.

“It’s hard to say exactly when or if the president’s going to sign,” Vice President JD Vance, who has led the U.S. diplomatic team, told reporters, noting that “the nuclear stuff” is still subject to negotiation. “We’re going back and forth on a couple of language points.”

“I do think that we’ve made a lot of progress here,” Vance added. “Hopefully we’ll continue to make progress, and the president will be in a position where he can endorse the agreement. But obviously, that’s still TBD.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending