Connect with us

Politics

Trump talks 'free speech' while moving to muzzle those he disagrees with

Published

on

Trump talks 'free speech' while moving to muzzle those he disagrees with

In one of his first acts in office, President Trump issued an executive order promising to end government censorship and restore free speech.

The order accused the outgoing Biden administration of harassing social media companies and violating the rights of average Americans “under the guise” of combating disinformation online, and said federal resources would no longer be used to “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

The order echoed a recurring theme from Trump’s campaign — that liberals across the federal government are censoring conservative voices to advance their own “woke” agenda — and immediately resonated with his followers.

“This order is a critical step to ensure the government cannot dictate what speech is permissible or weaponize private entities to enforce censorship,” said Mark Trammell of the Center for American Liberty, a conservative rights group founded by California attorney Harmeet K. Dhillon, Trump’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

However, many others said they found Trump’s order absurd — both because of his long track record of attacking speech he doesn’t like, and because of his new administration’s simultaneous efforts to muzzle people it disagrees with, including journalists, federal health officials, teachers, diplomats, climate scientists and the LGBTQ+ community.

Advertisement

“Let’s not be naive,” said Hadar Harris, the Washington managing director of PEN America, which has advocated for free speech in the U.S. for more than a century. “While some of President Trump’s flurry of executive orders pay lip service to free speech, in reality they frame a frontal assault against it, dictating the terms of allowable expression and identities, demanding political loyalty from civil servants, and threatening retaliation against dissent in ways that could cast a broad chill on free expression well beyond the halls of government.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Trump’s claiming to be a free speech champion while attacking the media and harshly restricting how longtime civil servants can communicate with the public — including in critical areas such as public health — was “ironic and hypocritical.”

“It’s classic Trump administration,” Bonta said. “It’s their rhetoric versus their actions, and you have to look at their actions.”

Limiting communication

Both at home and abroad, the Trump administration has ordered federal employees and diplomats to cease communications on a range of issues, including “diversity, equity and inclusion,” “environmental justice” and “gender ideology.”

It ordered Department of Defense officials to stop posting information on official social media accounts unless it is about the southern border, and health and other federal experts to limit communications even on critical public safety issues such as the spread of bird flu — which California officials have declared an emergency.

Advertisement

Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a public health professor and infectious-disease expert at USC, said he was alarmed Thursday when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention withdrew from a planned bird flu discussion with the Infectious Disease Society of America. Klausner said their pulling out was “a big loss for our ability to understand what’s going on” nationally.

Klausner said past administrations have given health leaders new orders — to curtail spending, shift priorities — but never such directives to halt so many critical communications at once. He called it “extremely concerning.”

Trump also has ordered a sweeping crackdown on federal communications about the LGBTQ+ community — removing LGBTQ+ resource materials from government websites and placing new restrictions on how federal employees can discuss or speak to LGBTQ+ people — or even use words such as “sex” or “gender.”

He has threatened similar restrictions on public school teachers and administrators, and ordered that LGBTQ+ Americans may no longer identify as transgender on passports and other documents.

Jenny Pizer, chief legal officer for the LGBTQ+ legal advocacy group Lambda Legal, said Trump’s orders are “the antithesis of free speech” and a clear government attempt to “silence people, to chill speech” — which is illegal.

Advertisement

She pointed to new rules barring federal employees, contractors and materials from referencing gender identity or fluidity. “Those concepts are being censored, and the language with which one articulates the concepts is being censored,” she said.

Lambda Legal has fought such efforts before. When Trump in 2020 issued an executive order barring federal grantees conducting workplace diversity training from referencing topics such as implicit bias or critical race theory — calling them “divisive concepts” — Lambda Legal and others sued and won an injunction blocking the order.

Trump has also kept up his criticism of the news media, calling journalists the “enemy of the people.” He is suing various media organizations — including the board of the Pulitzer Prizes and the Des Moines Register and its parent company, Gannett — over journalism he claims was libelous or unfair. The outlets have defended their work.

Katherine Jacobsen, U.S. program coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists, said journalists would welcome an honest effort to bolster free speech protections across the political spectrum, but Trump’s order isn’t that.

“What we’ve seen in this post-election period — and even before the election kicked off, in his last presidency — is that he hasn’t really been willing to support free speech when it counters his narrative,” Jacobsen said.

Advertisement

Online debate

At the core of Trump’s censorship order is his claim that the Biden administration “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech,” including by “exerting substantial coercive pressure” on online platforms.

It is not a new argument.

After the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and multiple investigations into efforts by foreign adversaries to spread disinformation and sow distrust in the American political system, social media companies promised to crack down — including by suspending thousands of accounts. Under the Biden administration, officials kept up pressure on those platforms to take down posts the administration deemed false and dangerous, including about U.S. election integrity but also the COVID-19 pandemic.

Those efforts increasingly rankled Republicans and eventually Republican states sued, accusing the Biden administration of illegally coercing the platforms to erase conservative content.

Experts say claims of liberal bias on social platforms are generally overblown, and point to thriving conservative communities online as proof. However, surveys have shown that many conservatives believe that bias exists. And Meta’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, recently lent credence to the claims by complaining publicly and to Congress about pressure his company received from the Biden administration to remove or limit the spread of certain content, including satirical content about COVID-19.

Advertisement

Lawyers for the Biden administration have said there is a difference between legitimate persuasion and inappropriate coercion, and that communication channels between government and social media companies had to remain open for public safety reasons. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration in June, finding the states had no standing to sue. Litigation around the issue persists.

In the meantime, tech leaders were shifting away from moderation — and toward Trump.

Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, purchased the social media platform X — then Twitter — in October 2022 on a promise to make it more free. He has described himself as a “free speech absolutist” and said Twitter wasn’t living up to its potential as a “platform for free speech” — which he said he would fix by loosening content restrictions.

Since then, Musk has joined Trump’s inner circle, spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars to help reelect Trump and Republicans in Congress, and been appointed by Trump to lead a new agency called the “Department of Government Efficiency,” raising all sorts of questions about conflicts given contracts Musk — also chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla — holds with the federal government.

Critics have also questioned Musk’s commitment to free speech. He has kicked journalists covering him off X and amplified conservative talking points on the platform. In September, X disclosed it had suspended nearly 5.3 million accounts in the first half of last year, compared with 1.6 million accounts it suspended in the first half of 2022.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, Zuckerberg of Meta — which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — announced his company had allowed for “too much censorship” and would be getting rid of fact-checkers, reducing content restrictions and serving up more political content.

Zuckerberg then went on the popular Joe Rogan podcast, where he said corporate America had been “neutered” and “emasculated” and complained bitterly about Biden administration officials calling Meta team members to demand they take down certain content — while “threatening repercussions if we don’t.”

A host of other tech leaders in addition to Musk and Zuckerberg — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and the chief executives of Apple, Google and TikTok — were on hand for Trump’s inauguration. Many also donated to the events.

Trammell, of the Center for American Liberty, said the Biden administration violated the rights of average Americans with such actions, and that Trump’s order “reaffirms America’s commitment to free expression.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who as chair of the House Judiciary Committee has overseen investigations into social media bias, noted the anti-censorship order, among others, in a post on X, writing, “Common sense is back!”

Harris, of PEN America, said her organization agrees that “government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society,” as Trump’s order states, and that the government must “take care” in how it addresses things like disinformation on social media platforms “so as not to infringe on free speech.”

Advertisement

However, the government “should be able to communicate and engage in information sharing with tech companies when disinformation is swirling online during a natural disaster, pandemic, foreign interference in an election, or other moment of heightened tension and risks to the public,” Harris said.

While purporting to defend speech already protected by the 1st Amendment, Trump’s order would make such necessary communication “impossible” and “limit the government’s ability to address disinformation at all,” Harris said — “giving disinformation free reign.”

Speaking out

Kate Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the pro-LGBTQ+ Human Rights Campaign, said while there are some legitimate restrictions on free speech — you can’t scream ‘fire!” in a crowded theater, for example — the Constitution already protects American citizens from the sort of government censorship that Trump purports to target with his order.

It also protects them from some of the things Trump’s other orders would usher in if implemented, she said.

“What he wants to do is make sure that speech or beliefs that are critical of him have less opportunity to be expressed, that speech or beliefs that are praising him have more ability to be out there, and to the extent that people are saying, doing, believing, reading things that he doesn’t approve of, he would like to shut that down and is taking actions to do so,” Oakley said.

Advertisement

But “our government does not get to tell us those things,” Oakley said, and groups such as hers are going to be using their voice to argue that point vociferously — including, if necessary, in court.

Bonta, California’s attorney general, said Trump is a “seasoned salesman” when it comes to saying one thing and doing another, but California will not be fooled and will also be calling out Trump’s anti-free speech actions and those that threaten public safety.

Pizer, of Lambda Legal, said legal intervention from groups like hers may not come immediately, as some of the orders are “still amorphous or theoretical enough that we can’t see what the effect will be.” But they are watching closely, she said, and already see the pain.

“The reality,” she said, “is that lovely, wonderful people who never did anything to hurt anybody are going to be suffering along the way as we try to shut this stuff down as fast as we can.”

Times staff writer Tracy Wilkinson in Washington contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act

Published

on

Trump-aligned House holdouts accused of holding ‘life-saving’ veterans bill ‘hostage’ over SAVE America Act

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A sweeping veterans package supporters describe as the largest expansion of veterans’ health care and benefits in more than a decade is expected to return to the House floor when lawmakers come back from the July recess, but backers warn the legislation could once again become collateral damage in the Republican standoff over the SAVE America Act.

The Take Care of America’s Veterans Act rolls roughly 60 veterans bills into a package that would dramatically expand veterans’ health care and benefits. At its core, the legislation would cement veterans’ access to community care outside the VA while increasing benefits for combat-wounded veterans, caregivers and Gold Star families, expanding mental health services and enacting dozens of additional reforms.

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost, R-Ill., told Fox News Digital he intends to bring the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act back for a vote as soon as the House reconvenes next week.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – MARCH 17: Eugene Simpson, 29, from Dale City, Virginia goes through physical therapy at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, D.C. with Michael Minor, a kinesiotherapist with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs on March 17, 2006 in Washington, D.C., USA. (Photo by Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images) (Jeff Hutchens/Getty Images)

Advertisement

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

The legislation was held up last month after a group of House Republicans joined Democrats to defeat a procedural vote, stopping the House from taking up the bill.

“I’m feeling good as long as my members stay with us on the rule,” Bost said. “Right now, there’s some politics being played, not about this bill, but just in general.”

The bill became entangled in a broader House Republican fight over the SAVE America Act, legislation championed by President Donald Trump that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections.

On June 30, the House voted on H. Res. 1398, the procedural rule governing floor consideration of several bills, including the National Defense Authorization Act and the Take Care of America’s Veterans Act. The rule failed after 14 Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, preventing the House from taking up the veterans package and bringing floor business to a standstill. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., claimed to have voted against the rules vote in protest against House leadership’s handling of the SAVE America Act. As a result, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson sent the members home early.

Advertisement

Bost accused the holdouts of effectively putting veterans legislation on hold.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs building is seen in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2019. (Photo by Alastair Pike / AFP) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Images) (Photo credit should read ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP via Getty Image)

‘IT’S A MESS’: GOP TURNS ON HOUSE CONSERVATIVES AS VOTER ID BLOCKADE STALLS TRUMP’S AGENDA

“They’re holding all bills hostage,” Bost said. “They’re not voting for any rule. Any bill that has to pass a rule before it comes to the floor—which this bill does because of its size—can’t move.”

Although Bost said he supports the SAVE America Act and has voted for it three times, he argued the Senate’s failure to act should not stop the House from advancing unrelated legislation.

Advertisement

“I agree with that bill,” Bost said. “But the Senate still has to do their work. We don’t stop our work because the Senate isn’t doing it.”

With 23 legislative days left in the Congressional session, Concerned Veterans for America Strategic Director John Byrnes, a supporter of the bill, said time is of the essence.

“There are lots and lots of things that have to get done,” Byrnes told Fox News Digital. “There’s also the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a must pass every year, so these things eat up time. There’s requirements to have debate on these, which eat up session time.”

Byrnes argued that every procedural delay pushes other legislation further down the calendar.

“This bill will save lives in 2027,” Byrnes said. “If we lose veterans because they could have had faster, better access to health care, we’re never going to get those veterans back.”

Advertisement

Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill. ( )

TRUMP’S SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWS SIGNS OF LIFE IN THE SENATE DESPITE REPUBLICAN REVOLT

But Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who also voted no on the procedural vote, told Fox News Digital that he has concerns about how the bill is financed.

“I appreciate what the chairman’s trying to do in some respects, but there’s a few issues,” Roy said.

Among them, Roy pointed to provisions offsetting new spending through changes affecting other veterans.

Advertisement

“You’re taxing certain veterans to provide some sort of benefits and changes to other veterans,” Roy said. “There are concerns about some of the pay-fors.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars has also taken issue with Section 108 of the bill, warning that it would codify changes to future disability ratings for tinnitus and sleep apnea to help finance other veterans priorities.

But Bost said this is inaccurate.

“No veteran is going to have their benefits reduced,” Bost said. “If you’re receiving a benefit right now, that’s not going to be reduced at all.”

Roy, who previously served two years on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said he supported a lot of what the bill was seeking to accomplish; but said other pieces of legislation are priorities, too.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“There is a block of us for whom border security, the SAVE Act and demonstrating our leadership on major issues is critical,” Roy said. “Some of these other bills may or may not get hung up based on a desire of many in the conference to see movement on other things.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Luna’s office and the White House for comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame

Published

on

Assassinations unleashed under Trump haunt Iran war endgame

Shortly before President Trump ended a ceasefire with Iran this week, Israeli officials presented his team with intelligence indicating Tehran was hatching new plots to kill him.

It was not the first such warning. U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have tracked evidence for years of Iranian efforts to target the president, with signals only increasing since the start of the war.

Their desire to target Trump and his top aides began six years ago, just outside Baghdad International Airport, when the president ordered a drone strike that killed Iran’s most powerful general. The assassination of Qassem Suleimani brought the two countries to the brink of war.

Yet even as full-scale war was averted, top Iranian officials vowed revenge for the strike, authorizing attempts on the lives not just of the president, but of his secretary of State and national security advisor, among others, even after they had left office.

Now, calls for revenge have reached a sharper pitch in Tehran, after a joint U.S.-Israeli operation killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, at the start of the war in February.

Advertisement

At Khamenei’s funeral ceremonies this week, red flags of vengeance flew throughout the capital as protesters explicitly called on their government to “kill Trump.” His son, Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, was absent from the commemorations, fearing assassination himself.

Mourners hold an anti-President Trump banner at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosque during mass funeral prayers for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family in Tehran on Sunday.

(Morteza Nikoubazl / NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The prospect of foreign assassination plots targeting U.S. leaders puts the United States in dangerous new territory, where its embrace of political killings could ultimately place its own officials at unprecedented risk. And experts fear the existential threat of assassination has pushed peace further out of reach: When both sides believe their survival is at stake, the trust required for diplomacy becomes far harder to achieve.

Advertisement

Israeli news organizations have reported that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cited Iranian attempts to kill Trump in recent years as part of his case to go to war in the first place.

A U.S. official told The Times that a range of serious threats exist against the president, including from Iran, but that Israel’s intelligence pointed to a more specific plot. The official did not provide further details. Israeli officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has said in recent months that the government sees vengeance against U.S. officials as “its legitimate duty and right,” and “will fulfill this great responsibility and duty with all its might.”

“The Suleimani killing accelerated a lifting of restraints on foreign assassinations — and the taboo on targeting and killing foreign leaders, with U.S. military assets, has been more or less lifted,” said Matt Dallek, a political professor at George Washington University.

“If the United States sets the example of how to conduct international relations, and it is using assassination of foreign leaders as a political weapon, it’s only logical that other countries will be more inclined to also engage in assassinations,” Dallek added. “It does seem likely that Trump will have a bigger target on his back.”

Advertisement

Returning from a NATO summit in Turkey on Wednesday, Trump was forced to switch back to an old model of Air Force One — equipped with specialized defensive technologies — from a new plane given as a gift by Qatar, after the Secret Service warned of potential threats to the aircraft from Iran.

“They want to take out the U.S. leader — me,” Trump told reporters aboard the plane. “I’m on whatever list. I saw this morning I’m on every single one of their lists. And so far, I guess I’ve been a bit lucky, but maybe that doesn’t last very long.”

The threat has remained on his mind in the days since. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump told the reporter, “I hope you’ll miss me,” adding that he has “been on their list for a long time.” And in a subsequent social media post Friday night, he warned of a catastrophic response he instructed the administration to pursue in the event Tehran succeeds.

“1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote, “with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME!”

The United States had a decades-old prohibition against assassinating foreign leaders before Trump’s presidency, codified in an executive order signed by President Ford in 1976 over concerns of a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro.

Advertisement

The policy was only strengthened further by subsequent administrations, fearing a new international standard for targeted killings could result in unintended consequences in the halls of Washington.

Other administrations have been accused of targeting foreign leaders before. Under the Obama administration, an international coalition targeting the Libyan regime of Moammar Kadafi during the country’s 2011 civil war struck his fleeing convoy, leading to his capture and killing by rebel fighters.

But experts say Trump’s explicit targeting of Suleimani and Khamenei — and his public celebration of their deaths — marks a new paradigm.

“Through words and actions, President Trump has done more to normalize political violence than any other U.S. president, certainly in modern times,” said Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Our Own Worst Enemies: America in the Age of Violent Populism.”

“On the international front alone, the president routinely brags about killing Iranian leaders and seizing the leader of Venezuela, among others,” he added, “to the point that assassination is becoming the new normal in international politics.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

Published

on

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A bipartisan housing bill became law Saturday at midnight after President Donald Trump declined to sign it, capping a weeks-long saga over whether the president would veto the measure amid frustrations with Congress over his stalled agenda.

Trump refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — legislation aimed at expanding the nation’s housing stock and lowering costs — in an attempt to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, despite the housing bill clearing both chambers with overwhelming majorities.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he declared on Truth Social Friday morning. 

The Trump-backed election measure, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and impose voter ID requirements, has struggled to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the House has not passed a version of the bill that includes the president’s proposed crackdown on mail-in voting and banning men from women’s sports.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP)

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

Under the U.S. Constitution, Trump had 10 days, not including Sundays, to sign or veto the housing measure after the House formally transmitted the legislation to the White House in late June. The president ultimately chose neither option, allowing the measure to become law without his signature.

Though Trump declined to veto the legislation, he sharply criticized elements of the bill and argued it should not have been a legislative priority in recent weeks.

Advertisement

“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in late June. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”

Trump went on to call the housing bill “a yawn,” adding, “compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

It would have taken a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto — a margin the House and Senate exceeded when they passed the legislation. However, it remains unclear whether so many Republicans would have defied the president had he vetoed the bill.

Trump also appeared to criticize the bill over a provision restricting Wall Street investors from purchasing single-family homes — a policy he first proposed during his January State of the Union address and later urged Congress to pass. Trump previously argued the investor ban would give individual homebuyers a leg up against private equity firms in the housing market.

“I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too,” Trump later told reporters, appearing to reference the provision. “These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They’ve become rich. I don’t want to hurt them either. What you want to do is what’s good for everyone, get the interest rates down.”

Advertisement

The law also aims to boost housing supply by streamlining federal environmental reviews, loosening rules around the construction of factory-built homes, and incentivizing local governments to modify their zoning laws to allow more housing, among roughly 60 provisions.

Trump’s souring on the legislation created headaches for Republicans, who touted the bill as an affordability win as voters grapple with high housing costs.

“It’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a retiring lawmaker who lost re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, wrote on social media. “We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!”

Construction workers stand on the roof of homes under construction at a new housing development on June 24, 2026, in Valencia, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Advertisement

Trump abruptly canceled a signing ceremony for the legislation at the U.S. Capitol in June with GOP leaders. The stage had already been set, with at least one senior Republican arriving unaware the president had called off the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin.

The president then declared he would not sign the legislation until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, despite Senate GOP leaders insisting the votes do not exist to advance the measure.

Trump has also expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate for declining to weaken the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the upper chamber.

“GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

Before Trump came out against the bill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history” and said it included an array of policies “long championed” by Trump.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Trump political operative James Blair touted the legislation for including the president’s Wall Street investor ban, which he referred to as a “signature commitment.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has argued that Republicans will still promote the landmark housing bill ahead of November.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively,” the speaker recently told reporters, referring to Trump. “And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending