Jason Kelce ripped for ‘out of touch' Fourth of July post
'Man I love the 4th! One of the great days we all can set aside our differences in this country, and enjoy the one thing we all share in common. That we are American! Cheers to you oh beautiful America,' the ex-Philadelphia Eagles center wrote in an Instagram post Friday along with a video of blasting fireworks.
His comments came hours after Trump signed his $3.3 trillion 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' into law during a Fourth of July celebration on the White House lawn. And the six-time, First-Team All-Pro was immediately met with animosity.
Advertisement
4 NFL legend Jason Kelce ignited plenty of fireworks on social media by alluding to President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' while wishing everyone a Happy Fourth of July.
Andy Kropa/Invision/AP
''Set aside differences??' wrote one commented. 'One party wants to feed children. The other wants to feed brown people to alligators.'
'Oof! Being supremely disappointed by a Kelce today was not on my bingo card,' another posted.
Advertisement
'love u bud but this is so out of touch, i beg you please read the room rn. so many are suffering,' added another person.
4
Jason Kelce / Instagram
4 Jason Kelce's Instagram post included video of blasting fireworks.
Jason Kelce / Instagram
4 President Donald Trump shows his signature on the 'Big Beautiful Bill Act' at the White House on July 4.
POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Advertisement
However, others defended Kelce's post.
'I am so super proud of you taking this stand and posting this,' wrote one person. 'There is absolutely nothing wrong in having difference of opinion.
'Yes, we are one and the beauty of democracy is having the freedom of airing your position. This is what July 4th represents.'
By Saturday afternoon, the post had generated more than 132,000 likes and nearly 4,000 comments.
Advertisement
Kelce and his brother, Kansas City Chiefs superstar tight end Travis Kelce, have remained largely mum about their political views.
But Travis Kelce's girlfriend, Taylor Swift, publicly backed Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump for president in last year's race.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Trump says he will start talks with China on TikTok deal
President Donald Trump late Friday said that the United States 'pretty much has a deal' for an American company to acquire the U.S. branch of TikTok, adding that he intended to restart talks next week with China to approve the deal. 'We're going to start Monday or Tuesday talking to China,' Trump told reporters traveling on Air Force One on Friday night as it headed to Bedminster, New Jersey. 'We think we probably have to get it approved by China. Not definitely, but probably.' He added, 'I think the deal is good for China, and it's good for us. It's money, it's a lot of money.' Trump did not say who the potential buyer was. The president said earlier in the week that he had found a buyer for the U.S. branch of TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned video app that faces a ban adopted by Congress over national security concerns. A 2024 law required that the app effectively be banned in the United States unless its parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese company. Congress was concerned that sensitive user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government. It was not clear if the deal would comply with some of the requirements Congress adopted for a sale of TikTok, particularly if ByteDance chose not to share the app's algorithm with the U.S. buyers. Private equity firms have been hesitant to invest in a deal without some form of indemnification. Trump has declined to enforce the law banning the app, which was passed by large bipartisan majorities and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Shortly after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it. Attorney General Pam Bondi has told tech companies that Trump has the constitutional power to effectively set aside laws. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Without compromise, American democracy has no future
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The following day, Bacon announced that he'd also had enough of the intolerant partisanship dominating Congress. The former Air Force brigadier general, Advertisement Tillis and Bacon aren't rebels. They just don't believe their job is to elevate hardline ideological rigidity above all other considerations. In that sense they are like former Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two Democrats who likewise found themselves demonized for occasionally making common cause with members of the opposing party. Last year, they too chose not to run for reelection. Advertisement Of all the developments that have sickened American politics in this generation, the abandonment of democratic civility and the resulting hostility to compromise are the most toxic. The virtues of moderation and magnanimity, the willingness to engage respectfully with others' views, the assumption that individuals with contrary opinions may be wrong but are not evil — without these, our political institutions cannot function. The first and most vital task of liberal democratic politics is to accommodate strong differences without tearing society apart. But that becomes impossible when conciliation is regarded as treachery — and when politics stops focusing on persuasion and debate and becomes obsessed instead with defeating enemies by any means necessary. Granted, Yet compromise has been the lifeblood of the American experiment from its earliest days. The very possibility of self‑government is grounded in the presumption that citizens with intensely held but divergent views can find ways to cooperate. The American founders knew perfectly well that there would always be deep disputes over principles, tactics, means, and ends. That is why they regarded compromise not as a necessary evil but as an essential element of our constitutional system. Advertisement 'Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics,' the American thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote in In ' America's independence holiday is a good time to remember that some of this nation's greatest achievements emerged from political give‑and‑take, not from unilateral assertions of power. The Constitution itself was born of compromise. At the convention in 1787, delegates were deadlocked between a population-based legislature (favored by large states) and one that would treat all states equally (favored by small states). Had the impasse not been broken by what was later called the Great Compromise — a bicameral Congress with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate — the convention would have collapsed and the fragile confederation of states might never have endured. American progress has depended time and again on the ability of political leaders to transcend their partisan, sectional, or ideological loyalties and reach a compromise all sides could live with. Advertisement Consider the bargain struck in 1790 between Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state debts, which would amount to a dramatic expansion of national power. That prospect alarmed Southern leaders like Jefferson and Madison — but they agreed not to derail the plan in exchange for locating the new national capital on the Maryland-Virginia border instead of in one of the major commercial centers of the North. Though each side had to swallow a bitter pill, the deal achieved two vital ends: national creditworthiness through debt assumption, and a seat of government accessible to both North and South. And it showed that even foundational questions about the scope of federal power could be resolved through negotiation rather than force. Congress similarly chose compromise over caustic stalemate in 1964, with a Civil Rights Act that combined Southern concessions on federalism with Northern demands to outlaw segregation. The law was far from perfect, but it transformed American society and politics. It passed despite the opposition of hard-core segregationists, thanks to a bipartisan coalition hammered together by President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader — proof that compromise, when linked to moral conviction, can dismantle entrenched injustice. To mention one more, recall the 1997 budget agreement. When Republicans under Newt Gingrich won control of the US House for the first time in decades, their ' surpluses . It was one more illustration of how ideological opponents, if they are motivated to do so, can find ways to compromise. Advertisement None of this is to suggest that all compromises are good. That would be as ridiculous as insisting that any compromise is bad. The point, rather, is that without the ability to compromise — and without the civility and mutual respect that make that possible — our democratic republic cannot survive. Maybe we've already crossed that point. Is there any reason to be optimistic about a Congress in which fanatics like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bernie Sanders flourish while thoughtful legislators such as Thom Tillis and Kyrsten Sinema are marginalized until they resign? In ' What would have happened if those men hadn't been able to reason together — if they had abandoned all efforts to persuade and had resorted instead to invective and intimidation? The American experiment might have ended before it even got off the ground. If today's leaders continue to scorn compromise and civility, ours may be the generation that brings it crashing back to earth. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
