New York Democrats are growing increasingly concerned that their historically deep blue state is now in play after recent polls put former President Donald Trump within single digits of President Joe Biden, according to Politico.
Two polls conducted in a swing New York House district in September and March found Trump leading Biden by one point, while other public polling conducted in recent months found Biden’s lead over the former president statewide shrunk to eight points, Politico reported. Biden won the state in the 2020 election by 23 points, but Democratic leaders are now reportedly urging his team to reallocate resources to boost both his campaign and the candidates running in swing districts.
“We’re still acting like this is a one-party state, which for pretty much 20, 25 years it has been,” Democratic Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine told Politico. “I truly believe we’re a battleground state now.”
“It’s never been more important for a Democratic House member to focus on building their own local brand and to run on that,” a high-level New York Democrat told Politico anonymously. “Biden isn’t going to be handing out coattails no matter what. He’s only got anchors.”
Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler and Rep. Joe Morelle backed the idea of replacing Biden during a Sunday conference call with other House Democrats.
A tight race in New York would take time and money away from being spent in the nation’s six battleground states, Politico reported.
“The money that needs to be spent here will be subtracted from other areas he’s going to lose,” former Democratic Gov. David Paterson of New York told Politico.
Republicans managed to flip four congressional seats in New York in 2022, and Republican gubernatorial challenger Lee Zeldin lost by less than 6% compared to the double digit losses Republicans experienced in previous cycles.
“If I’m a Democrat in some of these suburban races, I’d run the hell away from Joe Biden,” Laura Curran, former Nassau County executive, told Politico.
Trump’s nationwide lead over Biden increased to six points among likely voters after the CNN debate, according to The New York Times/Siena poll, marking his largest lead in the poll since 2015.
Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas was the first Congressional Democrat to publicly urge Biden to drop out. Several other Democratic members have also backed replacing Biden as their candidate ahead of the election.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, however, have publicly come out in support of Biden’s candidacy.
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Professor Dr. Marty Makary said on Tuesday that President Joe Biden seems to be experiencing signs of dementia and cognitive decline.
Corporate media endeavored for years to suppress questions about Biden’s cognitive health, but it has become a topic of discussion ever since the president’s disastrous debate with former President Donald Trump. Makary said on Fox News that the president’s movements during the debate showed “signs of somebody with cognitive slowing.”
Medical Professor Says Biden Shows 'Signs Of Age-Related Dementia,' 'Cognitive Slowing' pic.twitter.com/fuBzfiYnxH
“There was times of intense confusion and it’s hard to make a curbside diagnosis from a distance,” Makary said. “But when you look at the shuffling, the slow motion movement, what we call dyskinesia, when a hand goes out very slow for a handshake, and that kind of very slow movements. Those are signs of somebody with cognitive slowing.”
“And if I put a medical student of mine in front of the president and said, ‘here’s a standardized patient, do an assessment.’ If they came back and said there’s a normal cognition, there’s no diagnosis, that patient would fail the exam,” he added. “We’re clearly witnessing dyskinesias and signs of age-related dementia.”
Dr. Marc Siegel on Monday criticized the media for what he considers an inaccurate characterization of Biden’s issues as “gaffes,” asserting the president has shown indications of at least “mild cognitive impairment.”
“There’s issues clearly with spatial orientation, with severe memory lapses,” Siegel said. “And another thing that the media did, which didn’t do him any favors, is call these gaffes. It’s not a gaffe if you have an error that’s related to something going on with your thinking, judgment, attention. These are really important things and the patient is always the last to know.”
Biden seemed to express that he was unwilling to undergo a cognitive test during his recent interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, claiming that he takes one everyday through his duties as president.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was pressed on Monday by reporters demanding specific information on President Joe Biden’s medical records after a serious of reports showed a neurologist had visited him multiple times during his presidency.
White House reporters interrogated Jean-Pierre over the inclusion of a neurologist and Parkinson’s disease specialist in the White House log and asked whether this had any connection to the president’s health.
The press secretary stated that President Biden had consulted with a neurologist on three occasions, but declined to provide any further information, citing security concerns.
According to CBS News senior White House reporter Ed O’Keefe, the press secretary should have the ability to reply to inquiries on the president’s well-being. Jean-Pierre emphasized the need of respecting the confidentiality of the physicians and the numerous staff members who receive medical care at the White House.
“Ed, I also said to you for security reasons, we cannot share names. We cannot share names,” Jean-Pierre said.
“You cannot share names of others he would’ve met with, but you can share names in regards if someone came here in regards to the president,” O’Keefe shot back.
“We cannot share names of specialists broadly. From a dermatologist to a neurologist. We cannot share names,” she said. “There are security reasons—Ed, I hear you. I cannot from here confirm any of that because we have to keep their privacy. I think they would appreciate that too.”
“It is public,” NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O’Donnell said.
“It is public information,” O’Keefe added.
“I hear you, guys, guys, guys, hold on a second. There’s no reason to go back and forth and get this aggressive,” she said.
O’Keefe said he was “miffed” by the White House Press Secretary’s responses.
“You answer incorrectly and then you have to come back and clean it up,” O’Keefe said.
“I didn’t answer the question incorrectly,” the press secretary said. “That is not true. I was asked about a medical exam. I was asked about a physical. That was in the line of question that I answered and I said no, he did not have a medical exam, and I stand by that. The president stands by that. He had a verbal check in, that’s something that the president has a couple times a week. A couple times a week.”
“Now in regards to Dr. Kevin Cannard…” O’Keefe began.
“And I am telling you, right now, that I am not sharing confirming names from here. It is for security reasons, Ed. It doesn’t matter how hard you push me, it doesn’t matter how angry you get with me, I am not going to confirm a name. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the log. I am not going to do that from here. That is not something I am going to do,” she said.
According to White House records, Cannard, a neurologist specializing in movement disorders, had a meeting with Biden’s physician Kevin O’Connor in the White House on January 17 and visited the resident clinic on March 28.
A Parkinson’s disease specialist visited the White House on eight occasions during a period of eight months from July 2023 to March 2024.
Jean-Pierre stated during the briefing that Biden is not undergoing treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
The White House has issued a statement in strong opposition to the the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE Act), which would ensure that illegal aliens do not vote in U.S. elections.
The Statement of Administration Policy was posted at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB( website.
“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 8281, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in Federal elections—it is a Federal crime punishable by prison and fines. The alleged justification for this bill is based on easily disproven falsehoods. Additionally, making a false claim of citizenship or unlawfully voting in an election is punishable by removal from the United States and a permanent bar to admission. States already have effective safeguards in place to verify voters’ eligibility and maintain the accuracy of voter rolls. This bill would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but it would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls. The evidence is clear that the current laws to prevent noncitizen voting are working as intended—it is extraordinarily rare for noncitizens to break the law by voting in Federal elections.”
“The President has been clear: he will continue fighting to protect Americans’ sacred right to vote in free, fair, and secure elections, including by calling on Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. If House Republicans really want to do something about securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system, they should vote on the border deal that the President negotiated with a bipartisan group of Senators—this would provide immigration officials the resources they need to do their jobs and be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border that we have seen in decades.”
This legislation aims to implement crucial measures to prevent illegal aliens from voting in U.S. elections. The SAVE Act mandates that states exclude non-citizens from voter registers and grants individuals the authority to sue election officials who breach their sworn obligation to safeguard the integrity of the ballot box.
The Democratic Party has fully mobilized in opposition to the SAVE Act.
The Democratic leadership is strongly urging its House members to vote against the SAVE Act prior to the vote, arguing that it will impose an excessive burden on many Americans in order to cast their votes.
“As we’ve seen a number of times this Congress, House Republicans continue to irresponsibly call into question the credibility of our elections. Despite numerous recounts, challenges in court, and deep-dives by conservative think-tanks, there has been zero evidence of the widespread fraud that this bill purports to target. It is already illegal under current law for noncitizens to register to vote or to vote in federal elections,” the office of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) remarked.
“Democrats are urged to VOTE NO on H.R. 8281,” the whip question adds.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) questioned the motives of Democrats who would oppose the SAVE Act.
“Why are Democrats so adamantly against ensuring only American citizens vote in our elections?” he asked.
“They want to turn illegal aliens into voters. We must pass the SAVE Act to prevent this.”
X owner Elon Musk concurred with the assessment.
“The goal all along has been to import as many illegal voters as possible,” he said.
Journalist Greg Price pointed out that the White House’s opposition comes after allowing millions of illegal aliens into the United States.
“After spending the last three years flooding the country with millions of illegals, the Biden admin just came out against the SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of United States citizenship in order to vote in American elections,” he remarked.
Contrary to the Democratic Party’s claims, federal elections are not secure against illegal aliens voting (or their names being used to fraudulently vote by mail-in ballot) in U.S. elections.
As Ned Ryun recently pointed on X, Arizona’s law makes it clear that voters with unverified citizenship can obtain ballots and vote in federal elections.
“I will run this out, again,” he said. “A form from Arizona’s AHCCCS (Medicaid office) very explicitly telling folks that if their citizenship status cannot be confirmed, no worries. We’ll make sure to send you a ‘federal-only’ ballot.”
In 1996, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation that forbids those who are not citizens from participating in federal elections, which encompasses elections for the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and the Presidency.
The Pew Research Center reported that in 2020, the United States had a population of over 25 million non-U.S. citizens. The total population comprised over 12 million lawful permanent residents residing in the United States and 2 million temporary residents who were visiting the country for various purposes such as studying, tourism, employment, and diplomatic duties. Pew’s estimate also encompasses around 11 million illegal aliens residing in the United States.
The United States’ illegal alien population has roughly doubled under the Biden administration. It is estimated that an additional 10 million illegals have entered the country since President Biden took office.
If all 20 million illegal aliens were concentrated in a single state, that state would have the same population as New York, making it the fourth most populous state.
The White House has announced new steps on Tuesday to protect thousands of illegal immigrants living in the United States.
Officials informed Politico that Biden’s latest plan will urge the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to extend protections to approximately 500,000 illegal immigrant spouses and children of US citizens.
The president also revealed plans to grant “DACA recipients and Dreamers” work permits rather than temporary work authorization, according to a White House news release:
Today, President Biden is announcing that the Department of Homeland Security will take action to ensure that U.S. citizens with noncitizen spouses and children can keep their families together.
This new process will help certain noncitizen spouses and children apply for lawful permanent residence – status that they are already eligible for – without leaving the country.
These actions will promote family unity and strengthen our economy, providing a significant benefit to the country and helping U.S. citizens and their noncitizen family members stay together.
In order to be eligible, noncitizens must – as of June 17, 2024 – have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen, while satisfying all applicable legal requirements. On average, those who are eligible for this process have resided in the U.S. for 23 years.
Those who are approved after DHS’s case-by-case assessment of their application will be afforded a three-year period to apply for permanent residency. They will be allowed to remain with their families in the United States and be eligible for work authorization for up to three years. This will apply to all married couples who are eligible.
This action will protect approximately half a million spouses of U.S. citizens, and approximately 50,000 noncitizen children under the age of 21 whose parent is married to a U.S. citizen.
A June CBS/YouGov poll found that 62% of registered voters would support a government program to deport all illegal immigrants living in the United States.
The president took unilateral action on June 4 to tackle the migrant situation, despite claims for months that he lacked the authority to do so.
Republican FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor will criticize the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) “dangerous” failure to intervene in Democratic Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, according to congressional testimony obtained exclusively by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
During the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Bragg’s case against Trump, Trainor will explain that the DOJ’s decision not to intervene in the case sets a “dangerous precedent of local prosecutorial overreach in matters of federal concern” and unpack how Bragg “usurped the jurisdiction that Congress has explicitly reserved for federal authorities” when he attempted to enforce campaign finance law. A violation of federal campaign finance law was one of three possible crimes Bragg alleged Trump sought to cover up by falsifying business records.
Trainor argues that the Biden DOJ should have intervened when Bragg, a local prosecutor, effectively sought to enforce federal campaign finance law, arguing its failure to do so made Trump’s trial a major focus of the 2024 election.
“The fact that U.S. Supreme Court precedent is so decidedly in favor of jealously guarding the ability of federal agencies to enforce federal law leaves us to wonder why Attorney General Merrick Garland and the DOJ did not intervene in the prosecution of Donald Trump,” Trainor’s written testimony states. “The DOJ often touts its Memorandum Regarding Election Year Sensitivities as a reason for inaction on certain matters of a political nature. However, the purpose of the policy is to mitigate the affect legal actions have on providing an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
“I posit that if the DOJ had intervened early to protect the jurisdiction of the FEC and itself to prosecute federal campaign finance laws, we would not be here discussing this matter today and it wouldn’t be the preeminent topic of the 2024 presidential election,” he continues.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Foley are also expected to testify Thursday.
A Manhattan jury convicted Trump last month on 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to reimbursing Michael Cohen for a $130,000 nondisclosure agreement with porn star Stormy Daniels.
To bring the charges as felonies, Bragg alleged they were done to conceal or commit another crime: conspiring to influence the 2016 election through unlawful means.
The public still does not know, thanks to Judge Merchan’s instructions that did not require the jurors to agree on the secondary crime, which of the three unlawful activities alleged by prosecutors Trump was found guilty of concealing: a campaign finance violation, a tax violation or the falsification of additional business records.
Setting aside the due process issues that will likely arise on appeal, Trainor notes the that DOJ’s failure to intervene comes after the department already investigated the campaign finance issue and was unable to find any crimes committed by Trump, pointing to footnotes in two FEC documents that were unredacted May 31 at his request.
The unredacted documents show that “the DOJ had no issues with intervening in eight pending investigations being conducted by the FEC into the supposed $130,000 payment that was alleged to be misreported on a campaign finance report.”
Trainor explains in his testimony that the “DOJ inserted itself so fully into ongoing FEC investigations” that commissioners ran into trouble with the statute of limitations after the DOJ was finished.
“Clearly, the DOJ knows a great deal about the federal campaign finance issues that Alvin Bragg has prosecuted,” Trainor argues. “DOJ counsel knew the extent to which they themselves had exercised federal jurisdiction, investigated, and found no illegal activity by anyone other than Michael Cohen.”
In 2021, FEC commissioners deadlocked 2-2 on pursuing a case against Trump regarding the non-disclosure agreement with porn star Stormy Daniels after Republican Commissioners voted to dismiss the matter “as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion,” upsetting Democratic FEC commissioners who noted there was no other route for Trump to be held accountable.
“In sum, the public record is complete with respect to the conduct at issue in these complaints, and Mr. Cohen has been punished by the government of the United States for the conduct at issue in these matters,” commissioners Trainor and Sean Cooksey wrote at the time in their statement of reasons.
The unredacted footnote in the document states that the FEC’s delay in action is partly attributable “to the Commission’s acquiescence to a request from the U.S. Department of Justice to hold these matters in abeyance.”
In a May 2021 Washington Post op-ed, Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub slammed her colleagues’ decision to “kill” the case, writing that “no court can overturn this decision” under the current law.
The DOJ declined to respond to the DCNF’s inquiry about why it did not intervene in the case. Other FEC commissioners did not respond to requests for comment.
Other legal experts told the DCNF the law is clear on who has the authority to enforce federal campaign finance law — and it’s not Alvin Bragg.
“Both DOJ and the FEC could have appeared in the case through notification letters or a motion to intervene to raise objections to any claim of a violation of federal campaign finance law, explaining that the FEC has exclusive civil jurisdiction and the DOJ has exclusive criminal jurisdiction to enforce federal campaign finance law,” Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told the DCNF.
The Supreme Court “interpreted the FEC to have primary oversight of the provisions of the U.S. Criminal Code regarding enforcement of political contributions and expenditures, as well as disclosure requirements, by individuals, political organizations and candidates” in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, America First Legal Vice President Daniel Epstein told the DCNF.
“Interestingly, the Buckley Court pointed out that Congress provided public rights to individuals to petition the FEC for adjudication,” Epstein explained. “By taking federal law into his own hands, DA Bragg actually violated the public rights granted to U.S. citizens because his enforcement scheme, in circumventing the ability for individuals to oversee his enforcement, prevented the oversight Congress granted to individuals to petition the federal government.”
Similarly, Epstein noted the Supreme Court “made clear that federal election laws can only be criminally enforced by the Attorney General of the United States” in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
Epstein said Congress could hold Bragg accountable by conducting oversight over his office and the Court “for violating its authority to pass all laws necessary and proper to the enforcement of its commerce clause and other powers that give it exclusive legislative authority to enforce election-related laws as applied to interstate activities.”
Less than half of Americans approve of President Joe Biden’s handling on immigration, a new survey found.
Only 29% of Americans said they approve of the president’s handling of immigration, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released Wednesday. Conversely, more than 60% of respondents said they disapproved of his handling of the issue, and among those, 47% said they strongly disapproved.
Immigration was the second “most important” issue, losing out only to inflation but ranking above other topics including jobs and the economy, health care, climate change and taxes, according to the poll. Only 28% percent of respondents said immigration makes the country “better off,” compared to 38% who said it makes the U.S. “worse off.”
The poll, which was conducted between June 9-11 and surveyed a total of 1,595 adult citizens, is the latest indication of voter discontentment as the U.S.-Mexico border crisis rages on. Previous polls have indicated a more hardline shift on immigration policies, showing American voters are increasingly receptive to the idea of mass deportations, a border wall, and detention camps for illegal immigrants awaiting removal.
Border Patrol agents have made nearly seven million encounters with illegal aliens attempting to enter the U.S. between ports of entry during Biden’s presidential tenure, according to the latest Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.
The immigration issue has forced Democrat lawmakers in New York City, a deep blue locality, to introduce legislation that would roll back their sanctuary policy protecting criminal illegal immigrants, and prompted a number of GOP-led states to pass laws that enable their state and local police to enforce immigration laws.
President Joe Biden’s goal of building half a million electric vehicle (EV) charging stations across the United States by 2030 is being delayed by diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) requirements, according to documents and statements obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
To qualify for federal grant funding to build EV chargers, the Department of Transportation (DOT) says applicants should promise to engage in “intentional outreach to underserved communities” by hosting “neighborhood block parties” and other engagement activities, according to documents obtained by the Free Beacon. DOT officials who spoke with the Free Beacon cited these policies as the reason for why it was behind on its charging station goals, with only seven having been built as of April 1, despite $7.5 billion in allocated funds.
Policies like these “are screwing everything up,” one senior DOT official told the Free Beacon. “It’s all a mess,” they continued.
BREAKING.🚨
Congressional Republicans are introducing a bill that would *BAN* Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) programs throughout the federal government.
The draft legislation, introduced by @JDVance1, does the following:
Other examples of outreach activities provided by the DOT included “sporting or cultural events” as well as “games and contests,” adding that applicants should make available “multilingual staff or interpreters” for community members who don’t speak English, according to DOT documents.
“This all just slows down construction,” Jim Meigs, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, told the Free Beacon. “These ‘public involvement’ requirements are impossible to quantify and even open builders up to lawsuits by members of the community where an electric vehicle charging station is set to be constructed,” he continued.
The semiconductor-focused CHIPS Act, another of Biden’s infrastructure priorities, is saddled with similar DEI requirements, mandating that firms taking federal funds develop strategies to “promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility,” Fox News Digital reported.
Applicants for federal EV charging station grants must, in many cases, submit reports that can be hundreds of pages long on how they will pursue equity in every step of the construction process, according to the Free Beacon. Equity requirements like this increase the costs of charging station projects and slow their progression, a senior DOT official told the Free Beacon.
In addition to public outreach, the DOT also encourages applicants for grant funding to “promote local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship such as the use of minority-owned businesses,” the Free Beacon reported. One possible way applicants can do this is by committing to funding “support services to help train, place, and retain people in good-paying jobs or registered apprenticeships, with a focus on women, people of color and others that are underrepresented in infrastructure jobs.”
“These onerous diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements handcuff professionals from making proper evaluations and prevent the government/public from funding the most deserving projects, instead funneling money towards less qualified applicants,” the DOT official told the Free Beacon.
One of Biden’s first acts as president dealt with advancing racial equity, with the president signing an executive order on January 20, 2021, mandating that all federal agencies produce equity assessments.
The Environmental Protection Agency announced new tailpipe emission standards in March that would effectively require two-thirds of all light-duty vehicles sold after model year 2032 to be either EVs or hybrids. The Biden administration’s regulation came as organic demand for EVs were slumping, with their sales growing by just 2.7% during the first quarter of 2024, well under the 47% rate of growth the vehicles saw in 2023.
“Since the President took office, the number of publicly available charging ports has grown by over 90 percent, with more than 184,000 publicly-available EV charging ports operational today and 1,000 more coming online each week,” a DOT spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “There are currently projects underway in partnership with states and local grantees for 14,000 federally-funded EV charging ports across the country under the NEVI and CFI programs that will build on the 184,000 chargers operational today,” they continued.
Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy accused the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra on Wednesday of operating his agency in an illegal manner.
The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act mandates that the CFPB operate using funds from the “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System.” However, Kennedy alleged during a CFPB “Semi-Annual Report to Congress” hearing that the Federal Reserve has not had any earnings and has been “losing money” since September 2022, claiming that this means the CFPB is “operating illegally.”
“For the longest time, the Federal Reserve was earning money, but that stopped in September 2022,” Kennedy said. “Now they are losing money. They don’t have any earnings. They’re no longer transferring earnings to the general fund, and the Supreme Court based its decision on saying, this funding scheme is Constitutional under the appropriations clause, by saying that these earnings would go to the general fund from the Federal Reserve so getting them directly from the general fund is no big deal,” he added.
John Kennedy Tells Chief Biden Regulator Point Blank That His Agency Is 'Operating Illegally' pic.twitter.com/RoWVgwvcK7
The Supreme Courtruled by 7-2 vote in May that the unconventional way the CFPB obtains funding is constitutional. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the dissenting opinion that the ruling could establish a precedent wherein a federal agency can “bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight.”
“How are you entitled to any money right now?” Kennedy asked. “The Federal Reserve doesn’t have any earnings.”
Chopra responded that this is a “theory,” to which Kennedy said it is a “congressional statute.”
“You raise the difference between revenue and net income,” Chopra said. “There are other places throughout our laws. I can tell you we’ve looked at this issue. We do believe wholeheartedly everyone is complying with the statue.”
Chopra also disputed that the Federal Reserve has not had any earnings since September 2022.
“I know you don’t like to hear this, but the law is the law. You’ve been operating illegally,” Kennedy said.
“No, that’s not true, sir,” Chopra said.
Kennedy again asserted the Federal Reserve has had no earnings.
“We didn’t say revenue in the statute, we said earnings,” the Kennedy said. “How can you possibly argue that the Federal Reserve has had earnings? They’re losing money.”
“I’m happy to discuss this with you, but we have looked at this theory before,” Chopra responded.
The Biden administration “strongly opposes” a proposal to raise the pay of junior enlisted service members in the military — even after nearly spending seven times the proposed amount on Ukraine and the broader region’s security.
The House Armed Services Committee’s (HASC) draft of the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would give all junior troops a pay raise, representing a rough total of $24.4 billion over five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Biden administration said in a statement on Tuesday that it does not support the proposed “significant, permanent” pay hike until it has had a chance to conduct a compensation review.
“The Administration is strongly committed to taking care of our Servicemembers and their families, and appreciates the Committee’s concern for the needs of the most junior enlisted members, but strongly opposes making a significant, permanent change to the basic pay schedule before the completion of the Fourteenth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation,” the White House budget office said.
The Biden administration has spent over $175 billion on aid to Ukraine and European security since 2022 — roughly one-seventh of the proposed pay hike for the junior troops, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The $175 billion amount is broken into several packages over the course of two years, including the most recent aid package of $61 billion in April.
“When accounting for inflation, the average American makes less today than when Joe Biden took office. The White House wants to block Republicans from giving our troops the raise they need to make ends meet in the Biden economy,” Republican Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, a HASC member, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Meanwhile, they’ve sent the Ukrainian government $11,500 per Ukrainian household. It’s shameful.”
Bipartisan members of the HASC promoted the pay increase for junior troops as a way to improve recruiting and retention, a problem that the military has increasinglystruggled with. A year-long study conducted by the HASC and published in April found that “servicemembers, especially junior enlisted servicemembers and servicemembers supporting large families, struggle to afford housing and feed their families.”
The pay level for junior troops has failed to remain competitive with the civilian job market, especially with rising inflation, the study found. Junior troops received smaller pay raises than senior servicemembers — or no raise at all — in eight of the last 40 years.
“Joe Biden must hate our military,” Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, also on the committee, told the DCNF. “While families of our junior enlisted struggle on food stamps, this administration opposes their pay raises and wants to force-feed them pronoun training and drag queen story hour. If Biden had any PRIDE at all in our troops, he’d support the long overdue pay raise House Republicans have passed.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
