I asked Team Trump why they now hate a 'woke' bill he himself signed into law

I asked Team Trump why they now hate a 'woke' bill he himself signed into law | Opinion Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attacked a 'woke' law that came from Trump's first term. Somehow it's still Biden's fault.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Hegseth calls for 20% cut in four-star generals and admirals
Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth announced a plan to cut 20% of active duty senior generals and admirals.
President Donald Trump's Cabinet members during his second term are so dedicated to pitting Americans against Americans in their war on "woke" that they don't mind if Team Trump trashes Team Trump to accomplish that.
Case in point: Pete Hegseth, the guy who instilled so much confidence in America by vowing to give up drinking if he was approved as Trump's secretary of Defense, has expressed some strong feelings on the topic of "Women, Peace, and Security."
Hegseth posted on social media on April 29 that he had "proudly" ended that program at the Department of Defense, which he derided as "yet another woke divisive/social justice/Biden initiative" that had been "pushed by feminists and left-wing activists."
Hegseth added "GOOD RIDDANCE WPS," while acknowledging that he would still execute "the minimum of WPS required by statute."
I guess we should pause here to appreciate that a member of Trump's Cabinet is saying publicly that he will obey a federal law, even if all Hegseth can muster here is the minimum. That's a tall order for most on Team Trump these days.
We should also note that Trump signed into law the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 during his first term in office, after that legislation was sponsored by Rep. Kristi Noem (now Trump's secretary of Homeland Security) and cosponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (now Trump's secretary of State).
However, the messaging of Trump's second term, that "woke" is evil and any effort to address diversity, equity and inclusion is somehow anti-American, is so strident that it doesn't matter that those attacks target Trump's first term.
Why does Team Trump now disagree with itself? I asked.
The point of the law: to make it a priority of the U.S. government to include women around the world in efforts to prevent and resolve conflicts. But that was eight years ago, before efforts at DEI in things like war and peace became a key element in Trump's war on woke hysteria.
I wondered: Did Hegseth let Trump, Noem and Rubio know that he was torpedoing a federal law they all had a hand in crafting? I got some answers, sort of.
Let's start where this started. I sent that question to the Pentagon, where a spokesperson told me, "We have nothing further to add above and beyond what the secretary posted here," while sending me the same link to Hegseth's post that I had asked about.
Responsive? Yes and no, right? They got back to me to point me at the thing I had just pointed at for them.
The White House wasn't much better. An "administration official" – that's what they asked to be called – didn't even try to answer when I asked if Trump shares Hegseth's assessment of the Women, Peace, and Security Act.
Instead, the "administration official" noted that former President Joe Biden's administration linked the program to climate security while also taking an "inclusive, intersectional approach."
Opinion: Musk leaves Washington with his credibility and brand in self-inflicted shambles
That's code for daring to acknowledge that the world's climate is linked to security issues, and that people of various races, genders, classes and sexual orientations live on the same planet.
The Department of State was even more vague when I asked whether Rubio agreed with Hegseth's assessment. A "senior State Department official" – that's what they asked to be called – ducked that question while saying that the Women, Peace, and Security Act was "a noteworthy initiative aimed at empowering women and girls" that the previous administration "exploited to push progressive causes."
The Department of Homeland Security didn't respond when I asked whether Noem agrees with Hegseth about the program. She might have been busy cosplaying as a commando or posing for selfies in a foreign prison.
Noem, speaking as a member of the U.S. House in June 2017 as her colleagues prepared to pass her legislation, said she was "confident" it would produce "sustainable outcomes" that touch on America's security.
"Research covering conflicts from Northern Ireland to Africa has shown that peace agreements are 35% more likely to last at least 15 years when women are involved," Noem said from the floor of the House. "Even knowing this, women are many times left out during negotiations."
Does that sound "woke" to you? That sort of talk has no place in this new Trump administration. So, blame bouncing the program on Biden and get on with it.
Remember when Team Trump loved inclusion? Here's what they said.
A few problems there:
Rubio, for one, doesn't seem ready to move on. In an April speech at the International Women of Courage awards ceremony, he proudly noted that he cosponsored the Women, Peace, and Security Act.
The secretary of State called it "the first comprehensive law passed in any country in the world – the first law passed by any country anywhere in the world – focused on protecting women and promoting their participation in society."
Opinion: Trump wasted no time breaking his campaign promises. It's been 100 days of lies.
Again, pretty woke, right?
And I found plenty of times when Trump touted the law in the White House archives for his first term.
Trump, in a "presidential message" to acknowledge International Women's Day in 2020, called it "the first standalone, comprehensive legislation of its kind anywhere in the world."
It's entirely predictable, and reliably disingenuous, for Team Trump to now blame Biden while trashing legislation pushed for and passed by Team Trump.
PolitiFact, the fact-checking organization run by The Poynter Institute, dug into Hegseth's claims and reported on May 6 that very little has changed in the implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security Act, aside from some rhetoric.
"We found that the program did not significantly change from President Donald Trump's first presidency to President Joe Biden's tenure," PolitiFact wrote. "The Biden administration used some words and phrases in program plans that a Trump plan did not use, such as 'LGBTQI+' and climate change, but the program goals remained the same."
The goals are the same. But Team Trump's war on woke changed the playing field. So they'll just pretend a focus on Women, Peace, and Security is an antiquated idea from a bygone age: Trump's first term.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByCrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

43 minutes ago

• Yahoo

6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade

Social Security is a lifeline for millions of Americans, but experts warn that the program faces serious financial challenges in the years ahead. Lawmakers are under growing pressure to act as the trust fund's reserves are projected to run short in the early 2030s, per Social Security trustees report. For You: Read Next: 'The most significant reforms that have been discussed for years include raising the full retirement age, modifying the payroll tax cap, adjusting the benefit formula, and revising the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA),' said Shannon Benton, executive director of the Senior Citizens League. Below we dive into some of these possible social security changes. One of the most likely Social Security changes is raising the full retirement age, which is the age when Americans can claim full benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the full retirement age is already set to rise to 67 for workers born after 1959, and several proposals would gradually increase it to 68, 69 or even 70 for future retirees. This move is seen as a way to account for longer life spans and to help shore up Social Security's finances. Check Out: However, raising the FRA would mean that many future retirees would have to wait longer to receive full benefits. 'Delaying full benefits would effectively reduce lifetime benefits for many retirees who claim benefits early, particularly those unable to continue working into their late 60s,' Benton explained. Another major reform under discussion is modifying or eliminating the payroll tax cap, which limits the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. According to Benton, only earnings up to $168,600 are currently taxed for Social Security, leaving higher earners' additional income untaxed. Proposals like Congressman John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act would apply payroll taxes to wages above $400,000, creating what's known as a 'donut hole.' This means income between the current taxable cap and $400,000 wouldn't be taxed for Social Security, but income above that threshold would. Over time, as the cap rises, this gap would close and all high earnings would be subject to Social Security taxes. Adjusting the Social Security benefit formula is another reform that could be enacted to improve the program's solvency and equity. The current formula is progressive, replacing a higher percentage of income for lower earners and less for higher earners. 'Some plans propose reducing benefits for higher earners while modestly boosting them for lower-income beneficiaries,' Benton said. For example, the Bowles-Simpson plan would cut benefits for high earners and boost them for low earners, according to the Tax Foundation. These changes aim to provide greater income security for the most vulnerable retirees while reducing costs for the system as a whole. The way Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation could also see significant changes in the next decade. 'One recurring proposal is to adopt the Chained CPI, which tends to produce lower inflation estimates than the current CPI-W used for COLAs,' Benton explained. Critics argue this would erode retirees' purchasing power over time, especially for those who live longer. Alternatively, Benton and The Senior Citizens League support using the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which better reflects seniors' spending patterns and would likely result in higher COLAs. The debate centers on balancing the need for program solvency with protecting retirees' standard of living. A gradual increase in the payroll tax rate is another option experts believe could help close Social Security's funding gap. According to the Social Security Administration, the current rate is 6.2% for employees and 12.4% for the self-employed, split between workers and employers. 'Even a small increase, phased in over time, could significantly improve solvency,' Benton said. This solution spreads the cost across all workers and helps ensure Social Security's future without drastic benefit cuts. Benton predicts that changes to how Social Security benefits are taxed could be on the horizon, particularly for higher-income retirees. The Concord Coalition reported that up to 85% of benefits can be taxed depending on income. However, the income thresholds are not indexed to inflation, so more beneficiaries are taxed each year. Proposals include lowering the income thresholds or increasing the share of benefits subject to taxation for higher earners. This would raise additional revenue for the trust fund and target those most able to afford it. However, such changes could be unpopular among middle- and upper-income retirees, making them politically sensitive. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 This article originally appeared on 6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade

Atlantic

44 minutes ago

• Atlantic

Brad Lander's Stand

As ICE agents dragged Brad Lander, the New York City comptroller and a candidate for mayor, down the hallway of a federal courthouse this week, he repeatedly—and politely—asked to see their judicial warrant. Lander had locked arms with an undocumented man he identified as Edgardo, and refused to let go. Eventually, the ICE agents yanked Lander away from the man, shoved him against a wall, and handcuffed him. Lander told them that they didn't have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens. They arrested him anyway. The courthouse is only a few blocks away from the one where Donald Trump was convicted last year of 34 felony crimes for falsifying business records. His supporters painted the criminal-justice process as a politically motivated witch hunt. But none of them seems to mind now that masked ICE agents are lurking behind corners in the halls of justice to snatch up undocumented migrants who show up for their hearings. This was not the first time Lander had accompanied someone to the courthouse, and it wouldn't be his last. The Department of Homeland Security claimed that Lander had been 'arrested for assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer.' The whole thing is on video, so anyone can see that there was no assault. Lander is about as mild-mannered a politician as they come. Matt Welch, a libertarian blogger and no fan of Lander, wrote on X that the only things Lander had ever assaulted were 'Coney Island hot dogs and school-zone speed limits.' He's the kind of old-fashioned elected official who doesn't much exist anymore, the kind you see at public-library events or can call when your kid's day care is shut down and know he'll actually do something about it. A different kind of politician would have milked the attention for all it was worth. But if Brad Lander were a different kind of politician, he might be first and not third in the polls. 'I did not come today expecting to be arrested,' he told reporters after being released. 'But I really think I failed today, because my goal was really to get Edgardo out of the building.' People who are used to living in a democracy tend to find it unsettling when elected officials are arrested, or thrown to the ground and handcuffed for asking questions at press conferences. They don't like to see elected officials indicted for trying to intervene in the arrest of other elected officials. And they find it traumatizing when, as has been happening in Los Angeles and elsewhere, they see law-abiding neighbors and co-workers they've known for years grabbed and deported. The question now is what Americans are going to do about it. Los Angeles has offered one model of response. Although Trump campaigned on finding and deporting undocumented criminals, in order to hit aggressive quotas, ICE has changed its tactics and started barging into workplaces. Citizens have reported being detained simply because they look Hispanic. Residents of one Latino neighborhood recorded ICE officers driving in an armored vehicle. Many residents felt that the raids were an invasion by the president's personal storm troopers, and marched into the streets in response. The first groups of protesters were organized by unions, but soon, other Angelenos —of many ages and backgrounds—joined them. Most of the protesters were peaceful, chanting and marching and performing mariachi around federal buildings in downtown L.A. But others were not. They defaced buildings with graffiti and summoned Waymos, the driverless taxis, in order to set them on fire. The right seized on a chance to reinforce the narrative that California is in the grip of dangerous radical-left activists, categorizing the protests as 'violent riots.' Trump overrode Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, to deploy the National Guard, and sent in Marines to protect ICE officers. Of course, that meant only that more Angelenos came out to protest. There were arrests and rubber-coated bullets and clouds of tear gas. I would have thought that the reaction to the protests from anyone outside the MAGAverse would have been pretty uniform. Democrats have been warning Americans for years about Trump's descent into authoritarianism. Now it is happening—the deportations, the arrests, the president's face on banners across government buildings, the tank parade. 'Democracy is under assault right before our eyes,' Newsom said. And yet, so many Democratic leaders, public intellectuals, and members of the media seemed distinctly uneasy about the protests. Yes, they seem to say, ICE has been acting illegally, but what about the Waymos? In The Washington Post, David Ignatius fretted about protesters waving Mexican flags and wondered if the 'activists' were actually working for Trump. Democratic leaders were 'worried the confrontation elevates a losing issue for the party,' The New York Times reported. Politico raised a more cynical question: 'Which Party Should Be More Worried About the Politics of the LA Protests?' Many Democrats denounced vandalism while supporting the right to protest. But the Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was harsh in his criticism of the protesters, lamenting that the random acts of violence and property damage by a few bad actors would cause Democrats to lose the ' moral high ground.' There is a time for politicians to fine-tune a message for maximum appeal. But this is a case of actual public outrage against the trampling of inalienable rights. This is not a fight for the moral high ground; this is a fight against authoritarianism. Democrats made themselves hoarse warning against the threat to democracy Trump's second term would present. They invoked autocracy and even fascism to stir the public to keep Trump out of office. Obviously, it didn't work. But that threat is no longer abstract. It's now very real. And for all the speeches imploring Americans to save democracy at the polls, the Democratic establishment seems remarkably tepid about supporting Americans defending democracy in the streets. Yes, Democrats would have an easier time in the court of public opinion if no protester ever picked up a can of spray paint. And certainly, setting cars on fire is not good. I myself would love to have a nice, quiet summer. But I want to save our democracy more. We can't afford to get distracted for even a moment by the excesses of a few protesters, which are vanishingly small compared with the excesses of the president of the United States. Defending liberty is a messy business: You might remember all that tea tossed into Boston Harbor. The phrase 'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God' was once considered for the Great Seal of the United States. (Thomas Jefferson adopted it for his own seal at Monticello.) And yet, although the civil-rights movement is remembered for Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil disobedience, the movement included riots and armed activist groups. Violent protests, such as the Oakland riots of 1967, were a significant part of anti-draft and anti–Vietnam War movements. Their violence did not invalidate the causes those earlier movements sought to advance, any more than the property damage caused by a few activists today invalidates the claims of the great majority of peaceful protesters. Historically, protest movements are seen as 'civil' only in retrospect. For a party that you'd think would be fighting with everything they're worth, Democrats seem remarkably focused on preserving the status quo. Even after the loss of the presidency and both houses of Congress, Democrats won't shake anything up. Despite her popularity, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been kept out of any committee-leadership position. David Hogg, the young anti-gun activist, was ousted from his position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee after he announced his plan to back primary challengers against older Democratic incumbents in hopes of breathing new life into the party. Earlier this week, Trump announced on Truth Social that he had directed ICE to focus on what he sees as enemy territory: Democratic-leaning cities that have 'turned once Idyllic Towns into scenes of Third World Dystopia.' New York and L.A. are both sanctuary cities—they have passed laws pledging to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities. We shouldn't be surprised to see more citizens of these cities stepping up to protect their neighbors and their communities. That is exactly what Lander was attempting to do when he was arrested. 'This is part of what authoritarians do,' Lander told Democracy Now following his release. 'Our challenge is to find a way to stand up for the rule of law, for due process, for people's rights, and to do it in a way that is nonviolent and insistent, demands it, but also doesn't help them escalate conflict.' Lander's clarity in this moment makes him a rarity, even in the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Last Saturday, when an estimated 5 million Americans protested the Trump administration and New Yorkers marched up Fifth Avenue, two of New York's most powerful elected officials, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, the minority leaders of the House and the Senate, were in the Hamptons, dining on bavette and chilled English pea soup to celebrate the marriage of the megadonor Alex Soros to Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's longtime aide. Meanwhile, Lander was out in the streets, side by side with his constituents. A few days later, leaving the courthouse, he assured New Yorkers that he was fine, his only lasting damage a button torn from his shirt as a result of ICE's rough treatment. But, he warned, 'the rule of law is not fine, and our constitutional democracy is not fine.'

San Francisco Chronicle​

an hour ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

California will do anything to protect immigrants — except build them housing

Over the past several weeks, hundreds of thousands of Californians have taken to the streets to protest the Trump administration's increasingly authoritarian efforts to deport the state's undocumented population. There's a moral imperative behind these protests; the vast majority of the people being targeted by federal agents are law-abiding workers with no criminal records. There's a practical one, too: This state cannot function without its migrant workers, particularly our agricultural sector. It isn't just that undocumented workers will accept lower wages than their American counterparts. Farming is hard, skilled labor. Absent changes to federal immigration policy that would allow and incentivize more migrants to come here legally, California doesn't have the trained workforce it needs to feed itself and the nation. (We accounted for 41% of the country's vegetable sales in 2022.) And so, Californians and our politicians have rightly gone to battle with President Donald Trump. Yet as supportive as this editorial board is of these efforts, we'd be remiss if we didn't call something out: This state needs to become as passionate about housing our essential workers as it is about fighting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's been just over two and a half years since the deadly shootings in Half Moon Bay put the Dickensian living conditions of California's farmworkers — the vast majority of whom are undocumented — on the national radar. For decades, California had allowed its migrant workers to live in overcrowded, mold-filled housing with bacteria-ridden drinking water. That's if it housed them at all. What's changed? Not nearly enough, according to San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, whose district includes the site of the 2023 massacre. Building housing on farmland in his district has proven to be a logistical challenge amid drainage issues, sewage concerns and access to drinkable water. Yet trying to build worker housing off-site hits an even more intractable roadblock. 'The coastal community is, by a large majority, supportive of farmworkers,' he said. 'The opposition you run into is around density.' San Mateo County is hardly unique in this regard. In Marin County, for instance, an effort to build housing for the workers, many undocumented, being displaced by the closure of ranches in the Point Reyes National Seashore has been met with a lawsuit by NIMBY groups. This is, of course, unacceptable. And yet, state and local rules still too often empower obstructionism. Mueller said the arduous progress San Mateo County has made in building farmworker housing was mostly achieved using emergency powers that streamlined the usual permitting processes. 'The state was wonderful in getting our project moving,' Mueller said. 'We just need to do that at scale across the state.' We're nowhere close. In 2024, California lawmakers passed a measure to exempt farmworker housing up to 150 units from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. However, this streamlining applied to only two counties: Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. A bill in the state Legislature, AB457 from Assembly Member Esmerelda Soria, D-Merced, would expand those streamlining measures to Fresno, Madera and Merced counties. Over 40% of the state's land is used for agriculture. We're never going to get anywhere with a drip-drop of county-by-county CEQA carve-outs. Assembly Member Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, told the editorial board he'd be supportive of an effort to expand CEQA streamlining to his district and perhaps even statewide. But even that wouldn't be enough, Mueller said. For many Bay Area farming communities, the California Coastal Commission has its own separate and arduous permitting process. Without streamlining bills to cover this and CEQA, little progress will be made. And now an even greater challenge comes from the Trump administration. Farmworker-specific housing makes easy pickings for federal raids. Mueller says he fears his efforts to build new farmworker housing may have inadvertently 'put a target on the back' of the people he's spent years trying to help. This fear isn't theoretical. Gov. Gavin Newsom's office recently issued a press release saying that federal deportation authorities requested and received the addresses and immigration status of Medi-Cal recipients after the state expanded health insurance benefits to low-income undocumented workers. Tailored government efforts for the undocumented risk creating a paper trail that puts them in danger. 'It is clear that we must reassess our programs to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the personal information of our community,' incoming state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, told the editorial board. We don't have the answer to this quandary on the health care front. But California can do something for migrant workers as it relates to housing — something Limón and too many other California politicians have been reluctant to do. Make it easier to build. AB457 is an admission from legislators that CEQA creates onerous and unnecessary impediments to development. Yet housing streamlining bills such as SB79 from San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener, which would exempt developments near transit from CEQA review, provided they comply with local affordable housing mandates and other criteria, are receiving immense political pushback. Undocumented renters in California have virtually the same rights as everyone else in the private rental market under the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act. And landlords are prohibited from disclosing, or typically even asking about, immigration status. But without an adequate housing supply, those protections go to waste. Can most undocumented workers afford to buy a shiny new condo? Almost certainly not. But they could potentially move into older units that open up when other renters decide to buy. And they certainly could benefit from the development of new mother-in-law units — such as those that might have been built had cities like San Diego not just rolled back their accessory dwelling unit laws in the face of community opposition. If California is willing to fight the federal government to keep its undocumented residents here, it should also be willing to fight to ensure they don't live in squalor.