Trump uses antisemitic slur in remarks promoting his 'big, beautiful bill'
Trump made the remark in Des Moines, Iowa, at what was billed as an event by a nonpartisan group to kick off celebrations for next year's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. But Trump's campaign-style speech quickly took on a partisan tone, with the president expressing "hate" for the Democrats who voted against his "big, beautiful bill."
While ticking through the bill's provisions, Trump described one aimed at protecting family farmers by allowing them to pay a reduced estate tax when transferring ownership to their children.
"No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker, and in some cases, Shylocks and bad people," Trump said. "They destroyed a lot of families, but we did the opposite."
"Shylock" is a Jewish character in "The Merchant of Venice." In its description of the Shakespeare play, the Anti-Defamation League notes that the character, who serves as an antagonist, is frequently portrayed as a "conniving and cruel" money lender, reinforcing stereotypes of Jewish people as money-hungry and greedy.
Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, said Thursday night in a post on X that the term is "among the most quintessential antisemitic stereotypes."
"This is not an accident. It follows years in which Trump has normalized antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories — and it's deeply dangerous," she added.
When asked by reporters after his speech about the antisemitic connotations of the term "Shylock," Trump said, "I've never heard it that way."
"To me, Shylock is somebody that's a money lender and high rates" he added.
Former President Joe Biden faced backlash in 2014 for using the same term while serving as vice president. He later apologized for "poor" word choice.
The Anti-Defamation League, which criticized Biden's remarks at the time, said Trump's use of the term was "very troubling and irresponsible," adding that it "underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country."
"The term 'Shylock' evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous," the ADL said in a statement on X. "Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States."
The remark by Trump came as he delivered a more than hourlong speech praising the passage of the "big, beautiful bill," before a cheerful crowd of several hundred supporters, some holding signs that read "Make Agriculture Great Again."
Trump has previously faced accusations of antisemitism, including in 2024 after his former chief of staff John Kelly said Trump praised Hitler as doing "some good things, too."
During his first term in office, Jewish groups criticized Trump after he put white supremacists chanting "Jews will not replace us" on the same level as counterprotesters at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.
During his second term, Trump's administration has created a federal task force that plans to visit 10 university campuses in a bid to "eradicate antisemitic harassment."
The State Department has also moved to revoke visas for foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, including Mahmoud Khalil who was detained for more than two months despite holding a green card, for leading protests at Columbia University.
And, the Department of Homeland Security implemented a new vetting policy in April enabling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to consider a foreign national's "antisemitic activity on social media" as grounds for denying immigration benefit requests, including those applying for lawful permanent resident status.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
How to save thousands on a car by stacking Trump's tax credits with Biden's
If you've been thinking about buying a new electric vehicle, you have less than three months to bundle tax credits from both Joe Biden's and Donald Trump's administrations. Consider how each president's signature piece of legislation could help you save on a new car: ◾ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act: The Biden-era incentive gives you up to a $7,500 tax credit for new, plug-in EVs or fuel-cell electric vehicles. Trump's massive tax and spending policy bill will end this credit on Sept. 30. ◾ 'Big Beautiful Bill': Trump's new law offers an annual tax credit of up to a $10,000 on the interest of loans for new vehicles as long as they're less than 14,000 pounds and assembled in the United States. It covers purchases made in 2025 through 2028. Big Beautiful Bill 101: What you need to know about the new law How long Biden's and Trump's tax credits for new cars last Unable to view our graphics? Click here to see them. More: What new version of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' could mean for EV car buyers and automakers How to stack the auto tax credits Here's how combining Biden's and Trump's tax credits over the next four years could save you a hunk of money on an EV: A new EV might not be the best investment To be sure, this strategy might not be the best way to stretch your dollar. But perhaps you're set on purchasing a new EV with the latest gadgets and upgrades. The average price paid for a new EV this year has been $57,734, according to Kelley Blue Book. Even with the $7,500 tax credit, the EV premium over a gas-powered car is about $1,500. The math tips in favor of EVs when you look at the five-year fuel costs: $9,490 for gas-powered vs. $4,295, according to Kelley Blue Book. If you can live without the new-car smell, used EVs' average listing price this year is about $20,000 less than for new models, according to Kelley Blue Book. You can also get a $4,000 tax credit from Biden's legislation for a used EV, but that wouldn't qualify you for the Trump tax credit. Some additional fine print to consider if you use either of these tax credits ◾ Big Beautiful Bill: The tax credit for auto loans phases out for incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 for an individual and between $200,000 and $250,000 if you file jointly. It's not available for fleet purchases, commercial vehicles or leasing. ◾ Inflation Reduction Act: To take advantage of the EV credit, you also must buy the car − assembled in North America − for your own use. Your income must to fall below $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 for those filing jointly.
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Reacts To Hamas' 'Positive' Response to Ceasefire Plan
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. Donald Trump has welcomed the response of Hamas to the U.S. ceasefire and hostage release proposal for Gaza. After the militant group said Friday it was ready to enter talks to end the war with Israel, without confirming it had accepted terms, the U.S. president told reporters that the Hamas response was "good" and suggested a deal could be struck next week. Hamas captivity survivor Keith Siegel said in a media statement shared with Newsweek that Trump is "the only one" who can strike a comprehensive deal that can bring the remaining captives home. Newsweek has contacted the Israeli government for comment. File photo: Donald Trump gestures as he speaks on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. File photo: Donald Trump gestures as he speaks on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, It Matters Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet Trump in Washington, D.C., on Monday. The positive response from Hamas and the U.S. president's comments that a deal could happen next week have raised speculation that an end to the near-21-month war between Israel and Hamas could be imminent. What To Know Trump had said on Tuesday that Israel had agreed the conditions required for a 60-day ceasefire to end the war that followed Hamas' attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023; around 1,200 people were killed and over 250 taken hostage. Israel's bombardment on Gaza since then has killed over 57,000, according to The Associated Press, citing local health officials. Hamas said Friday it had responded in "a positive spirit" to a U.S.-brokered Gaza ceasefire proposal and was ready for talks. Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that he welcomed the response by Hamas as "good" and hoped there would be a deal next week. Hamas had requested changes to the deal; these include ending a U.S.-backed aid system by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in favor of the U.N. and its partners, as well as American guarantees that the war would not resume if talks failed, the BBC reported, citing a Palestinian official. The plan is also believed to include the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the bodies of 18 other hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Some 50 hostages are held in Gaza, at least 20 of whom are believed to be alive. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum has demanded a deal to end the war and release the remaining hostages. Thousands are expected to join hostage families at rallies in Israel on Saturday to urge the government to reach a deal to free the captives. In a statement via the forum provided to Newsweek on Friday, Hamas captivity survivor Keith Siegel said he and his family were grateful for Trump for prioritizing the hostage crisis, but only a comprehensive deal can bring all of them home. "President Donald Trump, you are the only one who can do it," Siegel said. "End the war, bring them home, create a better future for the Middle East." What People Are Saying Hamas said in a statement it consulted the latest proposal by the mediators to halt the war in Gaza and that it was "fully prepared, with all seriousness, to immediately enter a new round of negotiations on the mechanism for implementing this framework." President Donald Trump said: "They (Hamas) said they gave me a positive response? Well, that's good. There could be a Gaza deal next week." Mayar Al Farr, a 13-year-old Palestinian girl, told Reuters: "There should have been a ceasefire long ago before I lost my brother." Hamas captivity survivor Keith Siegel said in a statement: "My family and I are eternally thankful to President Donald Trump for prioritizing the hostage crisis since day one of his presidency and bringing me and so many others home. Fifty hostages are still in Hamas captivity. Only a comprehensive deal can bring all of them home." What Happens Next Given Trump's comments that a deal could be reached next week, there will be anticipation over the next move Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who will meet Trump in Washington on Monday. The Israeli leader has repeatedly said Hamas must be disarmed, but it is thought that this is something that the militant group has so far refused to discuss. The Times of Israel newspaper reported that Netanyahu was working with Trump on a deal to end the war, despite the opposition of the right-wing flank of his government.
CNET
41 minutes ago
- CNET
Congress Won't Block State AI Regulations. Here's What That Means for Consumers
After months of debate, a plan in Congress to block states from regulating artificial intelligence was pulled from the big federal budget bill this week. The proposed 10-year moratorium would have prevented states from enforcing rules and laws on AI if the state accepted federal funding for broadband access. The issue exposed divides among technology experts and politicians, with some Senate Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the move. The Senate eventually voted 99-1 to remove the proposal from the bill, which also includes the extension of the 2017 federal tax cuts and cuts to services like Medicaid and SNAP. Congressional Republican leaders have said they want to have the measure on President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Tech companies and many Congressional Republicans supported the moratorium, saying it would prevent a "patchwork" of rules and regulations across states and local governments that could hinder the development of AI -- especially in the context of competition with China. Critics, including consumer advocates, said states should have a free hand to protect people from potential issues with the fast-growing technology. "The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws," Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement. "States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on artificial intelligence that accelerates US leadership in AI while still protecting consumers." Despite the moratorium being pulled from this bill, the debate over how the government can appropriately balance consumer protection and supporting technology innovation will likely continue. "There have been a lot of discussions at the state level, and I would think that it's important for us to approach this problem at multiple levels," said Anjana Susarla, a professor at Michigan State University who studies AI. "We could approach it at the national level. We can approach it at the state level, too. I think we need both." Several states have already started regulating AI The proposed moratorium would have barred states from enforcing any regulation, including those already on the books. The exceptions are rules and laws that make things easier for AI development and those that apply the same standards to non-AI models and systems that do similar things. These kinds of regulations are already starting to pop up. The biggest focus is not in the US, but in Europe, where the European Union has already implemented standards for AI. But states are starting to get in on the action. Colorado passed a set of consumer protections last year, set to go into effect in 2026. California adopted more than a dozen AI-related laws last year. Other states have laws and regulations that often deal with specific issues such as deepfakes or require AI developers to publish information about their training data. At the local level, some regulations also address potential employment discrimination if AI systems are used in hiring. "States are all over the map when it comes to what they want to regulate in AI," said Arsen Kourinian, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown. So far in 2025, state lawmakers have introduced at least 550 proposals around AI, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the House committee hearing last month, Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican from California, signaled a desire to get ahead of more state-level regulation. "We have a limited amount of legislative runway to be able to get that problem solved before the states get too far ahead," he said. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts While some states have laws on the books, not all of them have gone into effect or seen any enforcement. That limits the potential short-term impact of a moratorium, said Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, managing director in Washington for IAPP. "There isn't really any enforcement yet." A moratorium would likely deter state legislators and policymakers from developing and proposing new regulations, Zweifel-Keegan said. "The federal government would become the primary and potentially sole regulator around AI systems," he said. What a moratorium on state AI regulation would mean AI developers have asked for any guardrails placed on their work to be consistent and streamlined. "We need, as an industry and as a country, one clear federal standard, whatever it may be," Alexandr Wang, founder and CEO of the data company Scale AI, told lawmakers during an April hearing. "But we need one, we need clarity as to one federal standard and have preemption to prevent this outcome where you have 50 different standards." During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing in May, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, that an EU-style regulatory system "would be disastrous" for the industry. Altman suggested instead that the industry develop its own standards. Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, if industry self-regulation is enough at the moment, Altman said he thought some guardrails would be good, but, "It's easy for it to go too far. As I have learned more about how the world works, I am more afraid that it could go too far and have really bad consequences." (Disclosure: Ziff Davis, parent company of CNET, in April filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging it infringed Ziff Davis copyrights in training and operating its AI systems.) Not all AI companies are backing a moratorium, however. In a New York Times op-ed, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called it "far too blunt an instrument," saying the federal government should create transparency standards for AI companies instead. "Having this national transparency standard would help not only the public but also Congress understand how the technology is developing, so that lawmakers can decide whether further government action is needed." A proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI laws is now in the hands of the US Senate, where its Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has already held hearings on artificial intelligence. Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images Concerns from companies, both the developers that create AI systems and the "deployers" who use them in interactions with consumers, often stem from fears that states will mandate significant work such as impact assessments or transparency notices before a product is released, Kourinian said. Consumer advocates have said more regulations are needed and hampering the ability of states could hurt the privacy and safety of users. A moratorium on specific state rules and laws could result in more consumer protection issues being dealt with in court or by state attorneys general, Kourinian said. Existing laws around unfair and deceptive practices that are not specific to AI would still apply. "Time will tell how judges will interpret those issues," he said. Susarla said the pervasiveness of AI across industries means states might be able to regulate issues such as privacy and transparency more broadly, without focusing on the technology. But a moratorium on AI regulation could lead to such policies being tied up in lawsuits. "It has to be some kind of balance between 'we don't want to stop innovation,' but on the other hand, we also need to recognize that there can be real consequences," she said. Much policy around the governance of AI systems does happen because of those so-called technology-agnostic rules and laws, Zweifel-Keegan said. "It's worth also remembering that there are a lot of existing laws and there is a potential to make new laws that don't trigger the moratorium but do apply to AI systems as long as they apply to other systems," he said. What's next for federal AI regulation? One of the key lawmakers pushing for the removal of the moratorium from the bill was Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. Blackburn said she wanted to make sure states were able to protect children and creators, like the country musicians her state is famous for. "Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can't block states from standing in the gap to protect vulnerable Americans from harm -- including Tennessee creators and precious children," she said in a statement. Groups that opposed the preemption of state laws said they hope the next move for Congress is to take steps toward actual regulation of AI, which could make state laws unnecessary. If tech companies "are going to seek federal preemption, they should seek federal preemption along with a federal law that provides rules of the road," Jason Van Beek, chief government affairs officer at the Future of Life Institute, told me. Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy at the Consumer Federation of America, said Congress could take up the idea of pre-empting state laws again in separate legislation. "Fundamentally, it's just a bad idea," he told me. "It doesn't really necessarily matter if it's done in the budget process."
