Swalwell says Dems must embrace ‘new tactics' to challenge Trump
'We're seeing, I would say, all of our colleagues are stepping up and recognizing that this is not, to the voters, an approach of 'Are you far-left or center-left?' It's more, 'Are you bringing old tactics to this challenge or are you bringing new tactics?'' Swalwell said Wednesday in an interview with The Hill when asked how he would grade the job that Democratic leaders are doing in their efforts to challenge the president.
'We have room for improvement,' he said.
'Old tactics would be sending an eight-page strongly worded letter to the administration,' Swalwell said.
Last month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) touted a 'very strong letter' that he and other top Democrats penned and sent to Trump oppose the cancellation of billions of dollars in federal funding for Harvard University.
'New tactics would be using everything we have inside the House procedurally to stop Donald Trump,' Swalwell said, noting a nationwide 'No Kings' rally on June 14 and town halls hosted by Democrats in GOP districts.
'Are you willing to recognize this is not a 20th century challenge? This is an existential threat to democracy,' Swalwell, an executive producer on the new film, 'Words of War,' added.
'It's either revealing who should lead or who should leave,' he said.
Pressed on what letter grade he might give his Democratic colleagues in Congress, Swalwell said, 'I'm not a teacher.'
'I put my helmet on. I'm back out on the field,' he said.
'I think people will judge me as doing everything I can right now to make sure that we get through, and have the muscle, and the vision to survive this greatest threat to democracy in my lifetime.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jerome Powell hit with a criminal referral over Fed's $2.5B renovation project — what it might mean for your nest egg
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell faces a criminal referral from Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna — the latest escalation in GOP scrutiny of the central bank's spending and leadership. On July 19, Luna sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi urging the Department of Justice to investigate Powell for potential perjury and making false statements to federal officials. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) You don't have to be a millionaire to gain access to this $1B private real estate fund. In fact, you can get started with as little as $10 — here's how The referral centers on Powell's June 25 statements under oath before the Senate Committee on Banking, where he addressed the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's historic Eccles Building. In a news release, Luna claims he 'knowingly misled' officials about the nature of the project during testimony, in which he 'denied the inclusion of luxury features.' '[Powell] stated: 'There's no VIP dining room, there's no new marble … there are no special elevators, just old elevators that have been there; there are no new water features, there's no beehives and there's no roof terrace gardens,'' she wrote in the letter. But according to Luna, his statement doesn't match up with filed documents. Citing the Federal Reserve's final submission to the National Capital Planning Commission, she said nearly all of Powell's denials — aside from the beehives — are contradicted by actual renovation plans. She also pointed in the letter to Powell's statement that the building 'never had' a serious renovation, despite a previous project from 1999 to 2003. If Powell knowingly misrepresented the facts, Luna argues, his actions may constitute perjury or materially false statements under federal law. According to Fox News, trade outlet Mortgage Professional reported that Powell has denied all allegations of perjury and has called for a formal watchdog investigation into the Eccles Building's renovation costs. Trump, Powell and the fate of your heard-earned dollar There's been growing tension between President Donald Trump and Powell based on a fundamental disagreement over interest rates. Trump has repeatedly criticized Powell — calling him names like 'numbskull,' 'Mr. Too Late' and a 'major loser' — for the Fed's decision to keep its benchmark rate in the 4.25% to 4.50% range throughout the year. Trump insists rates should be as much as three percentage points lower to help the economy Trump has said he isn't planning on firing Powell, but also hasn't ruled out the possibility. Powell's term as Fed chair runs through May 2026, and he has said he does not intend to leave early. While uncertainty lingers around Powell's future, it's worth remembering the core purpose of the Fed. As the nation's central bank, it operates under a dual mandate: to pursue maximum employment and maintain price stability. In a statement released June 18, the Federal Open Market Committee noted that unemployment remains low and labor market conditions are solid — but inflation 'remains somewhat elevated.' That may explain why the Fed isn't cutting rates. While lower interest rates — the kind Trump has called for — could boost economic activity, they also risk reigniting inflation. And the 40-year high inflation rate Americans endured in 2022 is still fresh in the rearview mirror. The good news? Savvy investors have long relied on certain assets to shield their wealth from inflation's bite — no matter who's running the Fed. A safe haven shines again Gold has helped people preserve their wealth for thousands of years. Today, its appeal is simple: unlike fiat currencies, the yellow metal can't be printed at will by central banks. It's also widely regarded as the ultimate safe haven. Gold is not tied to any one country, currency or economy, and in times of economic turmoil or geopolitical uncertainty, investors often flock to it — driving prices higher. Over the past 12 months, the price of the precious metal has surged about 40%. Ray Dalio, founder of the world's largest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, has repeatedly emphasized gold's importance in a resilient portfolio. 'People don't have, typically, an adequate amount of gold in their portfolio,' he told CNBC earlier this year. 'When bad times come, gold is a very effective diversifier.' One way to invest in gold that also provides significant tax advantages is to open a gold IRA with the help of Priority Gold. Gold IRAs allow investors to hold physical gold or gold-related assets within a retirement account, thereby combining the tax advantages of an IRA with the protective benefits of investing in gold, making it an option for those looking to help shield their retirement funds against economic uncertainties. When you make a qualifying purchase with Priority Gold, you can receive up to $10,000 in precious metals for free. Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — A time-tested income play Gold isn't the only asset investors rely on to preserve their purchasing power. Real estate has also proven to be a powerful hedge. When inflation rises, property values often increase as well, reflecting the higher costs of materials, labor and land. At the same time, rental income tends to go up, providing landlords with a revenue stream that can adjust for inflation. Over the past five years, the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price NSA Index has jumped by more than 50%, reflecting strong demand and a limited housing supply. Of course, high home prices can make buying a home more challenging, especially as mortgage rates remain elevated. And being a landlord isn't exactly hands-off work — managing tenants, maintenance and repairs can quickly eat into your time (and returns). The good news? You don't need to buy a property outright — or deal with leaky faucets — to invest in real estate today. Crowdfunding platforms like Arrived offer an easier way to get exposure to this income-generating asset class. Backed by world class investors like Jeff Bezos, Arrived allows you to invest in shares of rental homes with as little as $100, all without the hassle of mowing lawns, fixing leaky faucets or handling difficult tenants. The process is simple: browse a curated selection of homes that have been vetted for their appreciation and income potential. Once you find a property you like, select the number of shares you'd like to purchase, and then sit back as you start receiving any positive rental income distributions from your investment. Another option is First National Realty Partners (FNRP), which allows accredited investors to diversify their portfolio through grocery-anchored commercial properties without taking on the responsibilities of being a landlord. With a minimum investment of $50,000, investors can own a share of properties leased by national brands like Whole Foods, Kroger and Walmart, which provide essential goods to their communities. Thanks to Triple Net (NNN) leases, accredited investors are able to invest in these properties without worrying about tenant costs cutting into their potential returns. Simply answer a few questions — including how much you would like to invest — to start browsing their full list of available properties. What to read next How much cash do you plan to keep on hand after you retire? Here are 3 of the biggest reasons you'll need a substantial stash of savings in retirement 5 simple ways to grow rich with US real estate — without the headaches of being a landlord. Start now with as little as $10 This tiny hot Costco item has skyrocketed 74% in price in under 2 years — but now the retail giant is restricting purchases. Here's how to buy the coveted asset in bulk Car insurance in America now costs a stunning $2,329/year on average — but here's how 2 minutes can save you more than $600 in 2025 Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Trying To Ban ICE Agents Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing coalition of Democratic-led states is pushing legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations. California, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have introduced bills that would require federal officers to display visible identification—with limited exceptions for safety or undercover purposes—as part of a progressive effort to increase transparency and limit the agency's expanded powers under the Trump administration. Why It Matters Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increased criticism for deploying agents in plain clothes and face coverings during operations, a tactic officials say is necessary to protect agents and their families from threats. The agency's approach has drawn heightened scrutiny amid the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport millions of undocumented migrants, placing ICE at the center of a highly visible crackdown on immigration. What To Know At the federal level, House Democrats have introduced the No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act, which would require ICE agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification—with limited exceptions for public safety threats. Exceptions would be permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to the agent's life or risk of serious bodily harm or when protective gear is necessary for health or safety reasons. In any case where an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document the incident within 48 hours to assess whether it was justified and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. Senate Democrats have introduced the VISIBLE Act, which mandates that agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection wear legible identification showing their names and agency affiliations. It would also prohibit the use of most face coverings during operations. Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the bill, saying the measure seeks to increase transparency and accountability in federal immigration enforcement. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents' continued use of face coverings, even as the agency faces mounting criticism for obscuring personnel identities during enforcement actions. "I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks. However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it," Lyons said on CBS's Face the Nation. Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a news release: "I am deeply concerned about the prospect of ICE agents continuing to go about immigration raids in plainclothes, masks, and without identifiers that indicate what agency they're representing. The rules governing law enforcement should extend to federal immigration agents." Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Andrea Renault/STAR MAX/IPx At the state level, California is leading the way with its No Secret Police Act, introduced in June by Democratic state Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín. Senate Bill 627 would prohibit all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal agents, from covering their faces during enforcement actions unless in specific, limited circumstances such as SWAT deployments, medical masking or undercover work. The California Senate Public Safety Committee advanced the bill last week, but it faces a legal gauntlet, particularly over whether a state can dictate how federal officers dress. In New York, Democratic Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act earlier this week. The MELT Act mirrors California's SB 627 by banning masks for state, local and federal officers, and it would require law enforcement officers to clearly display their names or badge numbers and ban most mask use during public duties. Violations would constitute misdemeanors. In Massachusetts, Democratic state Representative Jim Hawkins filed a similar bill on July 9, focused specifically on ICE personnel. He argues that ICE's use of face coverings in routine operations blurs the line between law enforcement and intimidation. In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Representatives Paul Friel and Rick Krajewski are preparing to introduce the Officer Visibility Act in early August. The bill would ban face coverings during public enforcement operations unless medically required or part of a covert investigation. What People Are Saying Tom Decker, a former director of ICE's New York field office, told Newsweek: "President Trump and his administration are doing exactly what he promised in his campaign, strengthening our borders and removing public safety threats from our communities, to include aliens in violation of our immigration laws." Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "I'll keep fighting to pass commonsense legislation, like the No Masks for ICE Act, to keep our communities safe." Scott Mechkowski, a retired ICE agent who worked for the agency between the mid-1990s and 2019, previously told Newsweek: "I think everyone knows the reasons for the masks. Every agent knows they would be doxxed [publicly identified] as would their families." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama from August 2013 to February 2014, previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "ICE officers are being doxed, physically assaulted, and attacked—in some cases, their families are even being threatened. Instead of spending their time further demonizing heroic ICE officers, Democrat politicians should dial back the rhetoric and tell their supporters to stop attacking law enforcement." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work."
Chicago Tribune
12 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How US adults feel about legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, according to AP-NORC poll
Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
