Gov. Green heading to D.C., hopes Hawaii can avoid tariffs
HONOLULU (KHON2) — Hawaii Governor Josh Green is headed to Washington, D.C., on Monday, May 19, hoping to convince the President to ease tariff impacts on the islands.
'Hawaii does not want tariffs in general, and our small businesses don't need them,' Gov. Green said of his upcoming trip. 'Again, that's something I'll try to impress upon the President, and I have already spoken with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week or two weeks ago, and I think it will settle down.'
Businesses doing what they can as effects from tariffs expected to hit soon
This comes just days after the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization released a forecast that projected a mild recession due to federal policies.
'If the tariffs do cause a slowdown, we could see two or three quarters of recession, and that would affect us because if travelers don't travel, if they don't come to Hawaii, we're seeing a kind of a little dip right now in international travel. It, of course, could hurt our bottom line,' Gov. Green said.
The Governor is also encouraging Canadians to consider policy differences between the state and federal governments.
'I wanna say to Canadians out there, I love you guys. I love Rush, and I love hockey. Please keep coming to Hawaii. We are not a part of that discussion.'
Another aspect of his trip will be speaking to lawmakers at the Homeland Security Committee's discussion about vaccinations. He also hopes to lobby for avoiding Medicare cuts, which have been a prominent part of Republican negotiations in the House of Representatives.'Right now, they're litigating whether or not the COVID response was authentic and whether it was needed,' Gov. Green said. 'I'm going to follow five individuals that have been called by the majority, and then I'm going to rebut their testimony and talk about what we saw in Hawaii, how we came together, how we were careful with mask wearing. Vaccinations were at ninety percent in Hawaii versus eighty percent, with the lowest mortality rate. We protected our kupuna. So, I'll be sharing that information, and we'll probably talk about vaccinations in general.'
More issues with the federal government were recently decided on, when the state's land board rejected the U.S. Army's extension of its lease of the Pohakuloa Training Area on the Big Island, leaving the future of the military's training in Hawaiʻi unclear.
'We have to have the right environmental assessment,' Gov. Green said. 'That's why our Department of Land and Natural Resources folks felt that it was an inadequate assessment. That sends us to the next stage, which is how can we negotiate possibly a land swap that is beneficial to Hawaii. My feeling is there should be a smaller footprint overall, which is possible now with added technology. We do care deeply about our security presence in the Pacific. We also care deeply about the Aina. And most importantly, we care about our people, which is, in this case, the Hawaiian people who will feel that we've not been thoughtful about them or their history if we don't cut the right kind of agreement. So all those things are in play. We have to be careful because now we as we go to a possible land transfer or land swap discussion, we still have to be mindful of the environment, and we also have to make sure that we don't have the federal government just completely roll over us and take the land, through eminent domain. So this is a complicated one.'
Check out more news from around Hawaii
The Army's land leases on Pohakuloa Training Area, Kahuku, Makua and Poamoho are currently set to expire in 2029.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Liberals taking ‘fresh' look at online harms bill, justice minister says
OTTAWA - Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the federal government plans to take a 'fresh' look at its online harms legislation over the summer but it's not clear yet exactly what the bill will look like when it is reintroduced. It would be the Liberals third attempt to pass legislation to address harmful behaviour online. Fraser told The Canadian Press in an interview that the government hasn't decided whether to rewrite or simply reintroduce the Online Harms Act, which was introduced in 2024 but did not pass. He said Canadians can expect measures addressing deepfakes and child exploitation 'to be included in legislative reforms coming up in the near future.' In their election platform, the Liberals promised to make the distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes a criminal offence. They also pledged to introduce a bill to protect children from online sexploitation and extortion, and to give law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to pursue those crimes. Fraser said the growth of artificial intelligence is influencing the discussions. The spread of generative AI has changed both the online space and everyday life since the federal government first introduced the legislation. 'We will have that in mind as we revisit the specifics of online harms legislation,' he added. 'The world changes and governments would be remiss if they didn't recognize that policy needs to shift.' Online harms legislation was first proposed by then-heritage minister Steven Guilbeault in 2021, but after widespread criticism, the government pivoted and shifted the file to the justice minister. Guilbeault is now back in his old ministry, which has been renamed Canadian identity and culture. Prime Minister Mark Carney has also created an artificial intelligence ministry, headed up by rookie MP Evan Solomon. Fraser said he expects 'significant engagement' with Guilbeault and Solomon but it will be determined later which minister will take the lead on it. The first version of the bill alarmed critics who warned that the provision requiring platforms to take down offending content within 24 hours would undermine free expression. When Fraser's predecessor, Arif Virani, introduced the Online Harms Act in 2024, the bill restricted that 24-hour takedown provision to content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, or intimate content shared without consent, including deepfakes. It also required social media companies to explain how they plan to reduce the risks their platforms pose to users, and imposed on them a duty to protect children. But the government also included Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act amendments targeting hate in the same legislation — which some said risked chilling free speech. In late 2024, Virani said he would split those controversial provisions off into a separate bill, but that didn't happen before this spring's federal election was called and the bill died on the order paper. Fraser said no decision has been made yet on whether to bring back online harms legislation in one bill or two. 'That is precisely the kind of thing that I want to have an opportunity to discuss with stakeholders, to ensure we're moving forward in a way that will create a broad base of public support,' he said. Fraser said the government could 'modify existing versions that we may have on the shelf from the previous Parliament as may be needed, or to accept the form in which we had the legislation.' He added he wants to have a 'fresh consideration of the path forward, where I personally can benefit from the advice of those closest to the file who know best how to keep kids safe online.' While the government hasn't set a date to introduce legislation, it could include some online harms measures in a crime bill Fraser plans to table in the fall. Fraser said online harms provisions that 'touch more specifically on criminal activity' could be 'included in one piece of legislation, with a broader set of reforms on online harms at a different time.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 29, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials threaten, arrest and charge them
WASHINGTON — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power. 'If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,' said New York Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark. She calls the charges 'baseless.' It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents, wrestled to the ground and held while attempting to ask a question at a news conference of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and briefly detained a staffer. Congressional Republicans have largely criticized Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver. Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities. 'We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,' said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility. 'It's our obligation to continue to do it on-site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.' The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers — one of them fatal — and the nation's tense political atmosphere. 'It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,' said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). 'I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.' The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections. 'The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,' said Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.). As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions. 'There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,' said Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally. To amplify their concerns, Democrats have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and used digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure. 'We've been very successful when they come in before committees,' said Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who added that she believed the public inquiries have '100%' resonated with voters. Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground. A few Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House. 'I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,' Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said of how business leaders are keeping her updated. Garcia said Democrats 'need to put more pressure' on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to President Trump's White House. 'They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all,' Garcia said. Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until the Department of Homeland Security in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office. Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said that 'real oversight power and muscle' only comes 'when you have a gavel.' 'Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff,' Veasey said. 'Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him.' Brown writes for the Associated Press.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
By stooping to conquer, Sacramento Democrats show their pettiness and arrogance
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Carl DeMaio, if you so choose. The first-term San Diego assembly member is MAGA to his marrow, bringing Donald Trump's noxious politics and personal approach to Sacramento. For Democrats, the mere mention of his name has the same effect as nails applied to a chalkboard. Fellow Republicans aren't too fond of DeMaio, either. Party leaders worked strenuously — and far from successfully — to keep DeMaio from being elected last fall. They accused him of criminal wrongdoing. Allies spent millions of dollars to boost his GOP rival. Republican foes 'cite his relentless self-promotion, his criticism of his party and his tendency to take credit for victories he played little or no part in to help him fundraise and elevate his political brand,' CalMatters wrote in a harsh January profile. None of that, however, excuses the silly and juvenile behavior of the Assembly's majority Democrats last week when the chamber took up a resolution commemorating Pride month. DeMaio, the Assembly's first openly gay Republican member, rose on the floor to voice his objections. Usually lawmakers have around five minutes to offer their remarks without interruption. Not this time. DeMaio complained that the resolution — larded with more than three dozen whereas-es — strayed far afield from a straightforward commendation, endorsing some 'very controversial and extremist positions' opposed even by members of the LGBQT+ community. 'This is not about affirming the LGBT community,' DeMaio said. 'It's about using them as a political pawn to divide us.' You can agree or disagree with DeMaio. You can embrace the resolution and its myriad clauses with all your heart, or not. That's beside the point. About 90 seconds into his remarks, DeMaio was interrupted by the Assembly member presiding over the debate, Democrat Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach, who said he had a 'very important announcement' to make. And what was the pressing matter that couldn't possibly wait a second longer? Wishing another Assembly Democrat a happy birthday. Cheers and applause filled the chamber. DeMaio resumed, only to be interrupted a short time later. Lowenthal deadpanned that he'd forgotten: It had been another Democratic lawmaker's birthday just a few days earlier. More cheers and applause. DeMaio resumed and then was interrupted a third time, so Lowenthal could wish 'a very, very happy birthday' to a third Democratic Assembly member, who was marking the occasion the next day. The response in the chamber, laughter mixed with more whoops and cheers, suggested the hazing by Lowenthal and fellow Democrats was great good fun and oh-so-clever. It wasn't. It was petty. It was stupid. And it bespoke the arrogance of a super-majority party too used to having its way and bulldozing Sacramento's greatly outnumbered Republicans. A few things are worth noting here, seeing as how California is supposed to be governed by a representative democracy. DeMaio's political peers may not be terribly enamored of the freshman lawmaker. But he was the clear-cut favorite of voters in San Diego, who sent him to the Assembly by a whopping 57% to 43% margin. Their views and voices deserve to be heard. Democrats may be California's majority party, enjoying a sizable registration advantage. They hold 60 of 80 seats in the Assembly and 30 of 40 in the state Senate. But the state has nearly 6 million registered Republicans. There are doubtless many more in California who support the party, or at least its policies and broad philosophy, but choose not to formally affiliate with the GOP. They, too, deserve to be heard. A not-insignificant number of California residents feel overlooked, ignored and unrepresented by Democrats and their hegemonic rule over Sacramento. The frustration helped spawn the fruitless and wasteful 2021 attempt to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom — which cost taxpayers more than $200 million — and fuels the perennial fantasy of a breakaway rural state called Jefferson. To a larger point: One-party rule is not good for California. 'When you're competing, you've got to be sort of on your toes,' said Thad Kousser, a UC San Diego political science professor who's researched the difference between states with two vibrant political parties and those ruled by one or the other. 'When you're solidly in control, you don't feel like you need to prove it to voters,' Kousser went on. 'You can write off certain areas of the state. You can ignore legislators in the other party, because you don't think the shoe will ever be on the other foot. 'None of that,' Kousser concluded, 'is good for democracy.' It's been well over a decade since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger left office and Republicans wielded meaningful clout in Sacramento. The last time the GOP controlled the Assembly was when Bill Clinton was in the White House. Gerald Ford was president the last time Republicans had a majority in the state Senate. That's not likely to change anytime soon. In the meantime, Democrats don't have to love their fellow lawmakers. They don't even have to like them. But at the very least, Republicans elected to serve in Sacramento should be treated with respect. Their constituents deserve as much.
