NewsNation's Leland Vittert blasts House GOP ‘bullies' on rhetoric toward transgender member

NewsNation host Leland Vittert admonished a handful of Republican members of Congress over a spate of rhetoric coming from the party toward a transgender member of the House.
'Republicans risk turning their number one political issue into a political liability,' Vittert said on his prime-time program this week.
Vittert argued the GOP is going from 'the moral high ground, which is no boys in girls sports' to 'schoolyard bullying.'
The host called out Rep. Keith Self, (R-Texas) for an incident earlier this week during a hearing in which Self referred to Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first openly transgender member of Congress, as 'Mr. McBride.'
Vittert also defended McBride from attacks she has faced on social media from other Republicans like Reps. Nancy Mace (S.C.) and Mary Miller (Ill.).
All of those representatives are members of what Vittert called 'the Republican mean girls caucus.'
'It's mean, it's petty, but beyond that, it is politically really stupid. Forget being beneath the office. It's beneath human decency,' the host said.
Vittert noted that he has advocated on his program for issues like 'no boys and girls sports, no boys in girls bathrooms.' 'Absolute parental rights in schools,' he added, calling those positions 'common sense.'
'If you're not harming anybody else, you be you, and we will respect your right to do it. If Republicans aren't going to be nice, perhaps they can at least be smart,' he said. 'Republican stance on no boys and girls sports, huge winner, but they will turn it into a huge loser with cruelty. Here's another great thing about America: America doesn't like a bully, and it usually ends poorly for the bully.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

30 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast

Most retirees rely on their Social Security income, to some varied degree, to make ends meet. The 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report is calling for an even steeper reduction to retired-worker and survivor benefits come 2033 than was forecast last year. Ongoing demographic shifts are (mostly) responsible for Social Security's financial woes. However, the longer Congress waits to implement reforms, the costlier it'll be on working Americans. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security represents more than just a monthly check for most retirees. To many, it's a financial lifeline that surveys and studies have shown they'd struggle to make do without. For 23 consecutive years, national pollster Gallup surveyed retirees to determine how important their Social Security income was to covering their expenses. Every year, no fewer than 80% of respondents noted it was necessary, in some capacity, to cover their costs. A separate analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Social Security pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line in 2023, including 16.3 million adults aged 65 and above. If the Social Security program didn't exist, the poverty rate for this group would be nearly four times higher (37.3%, estimated) than it was in 2023 (10.1%). For lawmakers, ensuring the financial health of Social Security should be of paramount importance. But based on the latest Social Security Board of Trustees Report, America's leading retirement program is on anything but stable ground. In January 1940, the Social Security program doled out its very first retired-worker benefit. Since then, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published an annual report intricately detailing how the program generates income, as well as where every dollar in outlays ends up. But what tends to garner even more attention is the Trustees' forecasts of what's to come for Social Security. Specifically, the short- (10-year) and long-term (75-year) projections, which are regularly updated to reflect fiscal policy changes, monetary policy shifts, and an assortment of demographic adjustments. Last week, the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report was released -- and it contained some rather chilling news for current and future retirees. To begin with, the program's long-term unfunded obligation continues to widen. Every annual report since 1985 has pointed to a 75-year funding deficit between projected income to be collected and forecast outlays, which includes annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). In present-day dollars, discounted to Jan. 1, 2025, this 75-year deficit stood at a staggering $25.1 trillion. However, the more worrisome news is the short-term forecast for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund (OASI). This is the fund responsible for doling out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivors of deceased beneficiaries. Beginning in 2021, the OASI began outlaying more in benefits than was being collected in income. This outflow from the OASI's asset reserves is expected to grow with each passing year. By 2033, the OASI's asset reserves are projected to be completely exhausted. Before going any further, let's make clear that the OASI doesn't need a penny in asset reserves to remain solvent and continue to pay benefits to eligible recipients. With the lion's share of Social Security income collected from the 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary, there will always be income to disburse to qualified beneficiaries. But if the OASI's asset reserves are depleted in eight years, as the latest Trustees Report predicts, the current payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, won't be sustainable. The Trustees are forecasting a 23% cut to payouts may be necessary for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries by 2033 -- this is up from an estimated 21% cut outlined in the 2024 Trustees Report -- to sustain monthly benefits without the need for any further reductions through 2099. With Social Security providing a financial foundation to retirees for more than eight decades, the obvious question for current and future retirees is simple: How did Social Security get into this mess? What can be said with certainty is that "congressional theft" and "undocumented migrants receiving traditional Social Security benefits," which are two common myths/scapegoats mentioned by some people online, are the wrong answers. Rather, Social Security's worsening financial outlook is a function of numerous ongoing demographic shifts, as well as inaction on Capitol Hill. Some of these shifts are well-documented and understood by the public. For example, baby boomers reaching retirement age and leaving the workforce in larger numbers are weighing down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Likewise, people are living longer today than they were when Social Security initially began paying retired-worker benefits in 1940. To be somewhat blunt, the program wasn't designed to dish out payments to retirees for two or more decades, as is somewhat commonplace today. But a number of these demographic shifts aren't nearly as visible -- nevertheless, they're playing a key role in weakening the program. For starters, the U.S. fertility rate (i.e., hypothetical lifetime births per woman) hit an all-time low in 2023. A laundry list of factors, ranging from people waiting longer to get married and have children, to concerns about the health of the U.S. economy, have reduced the number of children being born and will, eventually, weigh down the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Rising income inequality is another issue for Social Security. Based on data from the Social Security Administration, approximately 90% of all earned income (wages and salary, but not investment income) was subject to the 12.4% payroll tax in 1983. By 2023, only 83% of earned income was subject to this program-funding tax. In simple terms, the wages and salaries for high earners have been increasing at a faster pace than the National Average Wage Index, which determines the upper range of earned income exposed to the payroll tax. In short, more earned income is escaping the payroll tax as time passes. Insufficient net migration into the U.S. has been problematic, too. Social Security relies on younger people migrating to the U.S. and contributing to the program for decades via the payroll tax before earning a retirement benefit for themselves one day. Since 1997, the net migration rate into the U.S. has dropped off dramatically. The final culprit is the aforementioned lack of action by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Although plenty of bills have been proposed, the cavernous ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill as to how best to strengthen Social Security has led to an ongoing stalemate. If there's a silver lining here, it's that lawmakers do have a knack for coming to Social Security's rescue in the 11th hour. But the longer Congress waits to tackle this issue, the costlier it's going to be on working Americans to fix. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Benefits Are an Estimated 8 Years Away From Being Slashed -- and the Cuts Are Even Bigger Than Initially Forecast was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

San Francisco Chronicle​

32 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns

WASHINGTON (AP) — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill. The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called 'suppressors' by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks. The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns. Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful." 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.

Politico

35 minutes ago

• Politico

Legal dramas would trail Andrew Cuomo to City Hall

NEW YORK — A thicket of court cases and a legal strategy that silences critics will follow Andrew Cuomo into City Hall if he's elected mayor of the nation's largest city. Playing out against the backdrop of the heated New York City Democratic primary that Cuomo has dominated for months is his aggressive legal maneuvering as he continues to deny any wrongdoing in the scandals that pushed him from office. The frontrunner and former New York governor is embroiled in several lawsuits, including two filed by women — a former member of his State Police security detail and an ex-aide — who accused him of sexual harassment. Cuomo signaled his intention to file a defamation suit against a third woman, former aide and accuser Charlotte Bennett. The move came as Cuomo was preparing to enter the mayoral race last year; Bennett described it as effectively muzzling her from talking about her experience. Cuomo's legal tactics have included seeking Bennett's gynecological and therapist records, which his attorney Rita Glavin called a 'pro forma request' made at the direction of a psychiatric expert due to the damages being sought. Glavin said she'd have offered a fulsome response, but is limited by a confidentiality order enforced by Bennett's attorneys. In a separate case filed by former aide Brittany Commisso, Cuomo's attorneys subpoenaed communications with her ex-husband, an Albany politician, that her attorney argued have nothing to do with the case. The ex-governor's legal team has insisted these demands are routine and necessary to mount a robust defense. Complicating matters further for Cuomo, he is reportedly under investigation by the Trump administration after House Republicans referred him for prosecution after accusing him of lying to a Congressional panel investigating his Covid-era policies, a claim he's denied. Cuomo says he's yet to be contacted by the DOJ and has called the probe politically motivated, even though Democrats also raised concerns about his testimony. Taken together, the legal cases surrounding the former governor paint a picture of someone acclimating to the job of running New York City while defending himself in two lawsuits, pursuing a third and potentially responding to a federal investigation. It all comes as he seeks to turn the page on the scandals that led to his political downfall four years ago, with an electoral comeback that would belie the ongoing legal machinations that blossomed following his resignation. The dynamic calls to mind the legal woes of Mayor Eric Adams, whose corruption charges were dismissed after the Democrat cozied up to President Donald Trump. Adams' closeness to the Republican president further tarnished his standing with voters, leading him to forgo seeking the Democratic nomination and run as an independent in November. Cuomo critics assert the legal dramas would hinder his management of the city and create a dynamic similar to the one that has dogged Adams. 'It would take away Cuomo's ability to govern,' Assemblymember Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas said. 'It's why Eric Adams is deeply compromised. We don't need one scandal-ridden mayor replaced with another.' The ex-governor's attorneys have pounced on criticism of him as he attempts his political comeback. Lawyers have admonished their counterparts in harassment lawsuits from publicizing that Cuomo has leveraged a state law to have taxpayers cover his attorneys' fees in some cases, warning that such criticism is 'prejudicing Governor Cuomo's right to a fair trial.' Taxpayers spent $20.3 million to defend Cuomo and several former advisors in three sexual harassment lawsuits, according to a recent tally by the state comptroller's office. Efforts to suppress criticism have crossed into his mayoral bid. His campaign attorney in May sent a 'cease-and-desist' notice to a union backing one of Cuomo's rivals for making inaccurate claims in a political flyer. Some of the notice's concerns — an accusation that the ex-governor is no 'friend' of working people — are standard campaign rhetoric. Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi pointed to efforts by the Trump administration to investigate or arrest prominent Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer while opening an investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James. State lawmakers approved a $10 million pot of money for James' legal bills, he noted. 'Pretending like this nonsense is somehow a different situation is silly and disingenuous,' Azzopardi said. 'Trump will try this with anyone who — unlike Mayor Adams — refuses to bend the knee. These are serious times and New Yorkers know Andrew Cuomo is the only candidate who has the experience and the record of results to fix what's broken and put the city back on the right track.' The former governor has insisted as mayor he would not be beholden to Trump and is best suited to negotiate with the mercurial president given their decades of shared history. He said the allegations against him — sexually harassing 11 women as determined by the state attorney general's report — were 'all political.' The former governor during a televised debate said the allegations never translated to criminal cases, rather 'political fodder for my opponents.' 'Four years later, we've had five district attorneys — Democrat, Republicans, upstate, downstate — nothing has come of them whatsoever,' Cuomo said during the debate. 'There has been one civil case that's been resolved,' he added in reference to Bennett withdrawing her lawsuit last year. 'I was dropped from the case.' Cuomo's scandals have not dented his mayoral prospects, and his rivals have failed to capitalize on the controversies. He entered the race on March 1 and instantly became the leading candidate for the party's nomination after weeks of privately sewing the perception that his victory would be inevitable. But there is some sense his scandals are not far from voters' minds, given his otherwise high negatives, even as most polls show him winning the race. Candidate Zohran Mamdani, however, is gaining on Cuomo in polls, and early voting returns show an increase in participation from younger voters likely to back the 33-year-old democratic socialist Mamdani over the former governor. On Saturday, Cuomo foe Brad Lander appeared with Bennett and several others who accused the ex-governor of harassment, along with a man whose father, a nursing home resident, died of Covid. At least two sexual harassment lawsuits stand to follow Cuomo into City Hall. Commisso sued him in November 2023 after she alleged Cuomo groped her at the governor's mansion. Court papers show Cuomo would sit for a deposition as late as December — weeks before the inauguration of the city's next mayor. Another suit filed by a woman known as Trooper 1 is not expected to conclude this year. As he prepared to run, Cuomo's attorneys moved to sue Bennett, a former administration aide who first accused him of sexual harassment in 2021, claiming she defamed him when making her claims public. Bennett only days earlier dropped her own sexual harassment lawsuit against the ex-governor. Going on the offensive, Cuomo's legal team asserted Bennett's allegations were a key factor in his eventual downfall. 'Bennett's false allegations materially contributed to a cascade of harm to Governor Cuomo,' attorneys for the former governor wrote in an initial court filing. 'Among other things, the false accusations she publicized in the national media were a significant factor in calls for an investigation into Governor Cuomo's conduct.' Cuomo last week did not answer a reporter's questions over whether he would pursue a defamation case against Bennett if elected mayor. Bennett responded on X: 'There have been a lot of discussions about my gynecological records and yet barely any mention of the fact that I STILL am not safe to discuss this personal experience publicly.' Her attorney did not return messages seeking comment. The defamation maneuver stunned advocates for survivors and reinvigorated a push by state lawmakers to pass a law that would make it harder for people accused of sexual harassment to file such cases. The effect of a defamation suit, though, could be far-reaching for Cuomo's potential tenure in City Hall. 'It sets a highly concerning tone for what New York stands for. Imagine how terrifying that would be with him coming back — what does that do to an ordinary person who may come forward?' said Victoria Burke, a California-based privacy attorney who crafted legislation meant to limit defamation suits like the one Cuomo filed against Bennett. 'It would have a chilling effect on anyone who comes forward. He's powerful, he's back, he's not remorseful.' Glavin, the Cuomo attorney, said: 'Everyone is entitled to due process and has the right to defend themself, particularly against demonstrably false allegations.' The Bennett lawsuit, she said, 'fell apart' due to requests for text and video messages 'that disproved her claims' which investigators did not obtain. 'Bennett's claims were virtually worthless, which is why the state eventually agreed to a nuisance settlement. Commisso's lawsuit is headed in the exact same direction — like Bennett, Commisso also withheld from investigators dozens of texts that gut her allegations, which is why her lawyers are now engaged in legal maneuvering to avoid Commisso having to sit for a deposition,' Glavin said. She continued: 'Trooper 1's case — which the New York State Police are also defending against — is likewise in tatters. What you cite are nothing more than routine, pro forma discovery requests that any defendant would make. Moreover, none of these cases involve an order preventing any complainant from talking publicly. If anyone is worried about a defamation claim, it must be because they know their allegations are false. ' Cuomo initially expressed regret when Bennett first came forward in 2021 to describe how the then-governor would ask questions about her personal relationships and sex life while telling her he was lonely. Looking directly into the camera during one of his Covid briefings that shot him to national stardom, Cuomo apologized if he made anyone feel uncomfortable. Out of office, Cuomo has denied any wrongdoing. In legal filings, his attorneys are taking a forceful posture, which extends to lawyers representing the women. Less than a week after Cuomo announced his mayoral campaign, in a letter to the court, Glavin blasted Commisso lawyer Mariann Wang for calling the ex-governor 'an unrepentant sexual harasser' as 'defamatory.' Criticizing Cuomo for receiving taxpayer assistance to defend himself would hurt his chances for a fair trial, Glavin wrote. 'There is nothing improper about Governor Cuomo receiving the state funded defense to which he is entitled to under the law,' Glavin wrote. 'Yet, Ms. Wang seeks to weaponize that fact and taint public opinion by calling Governor Cuomo's appropriate and routine discovery efforts 'vindictive.'' Wang responded that Cuomo would 'surely like' to prevent accusers from speaking about him but 'unfortunately for him, the First Amendment does not allow for such prior restraints on core political speech.'