Trump says number of 'non-working holidays' in America 'must change' in Juneteenth social media post
In a social media post on Juneteenth, President Donald Trump said America has "too many" holidays where people don't work.
"Too many non-working holidays in America," Trump wrote on Truth Social late Thursday. "It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed."
The president said that the frequency of holidays "must change" and that workers didn't want them, either.
"The workers don't want it either!" he continued. "Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year. It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Juneteenth, held on June 19 every year, commemorates the end of slavery in the United States and has long been celebrated by Black Americans.
It became the 11th federal holiday in 2021 with a law signed by then-President Joe Biden. The bill passed with broad bipartisan support, receiving unanimous approval in the Senate and all but 14 votes in the House of Representatives.
Most federal offices, such as the US Postal Service, are closed during Juneteenth. Markets like the Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange don't trade during the holiday, either.
But whether private companies and state governments remain open varies. Most major banks are closed for the holiday, but not all companies provide paid time off.
The White House press office didn't immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment regarding Trump's Truth Social post.
Earlier on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a press briefing that the White House was open. When asked by a journalist about commemorating Juneteenth, she said she was "not tracking" Trump's signature on any proclamations for the holiday.
"I know this is a federal holiday," she said. "I want to thank all of you for showing up to work. We are certainly here. We're working 24/7 right now."
Trump himself supported making Juneteenth a federal holiday in the wake of widespread protests following the killing of George Floyd. "Make Juneteenth a National Holiday" was included among his "Promise to Black America over 4 years" policy proposals in his 2020 presidential campaign.
During that campaign, Trump took credit for publicizing Juneteenth after moving one of his rallies from June 19 to June 20 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
"I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous," Trump told The Wall Street Journal at the time. "It's actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it."
In the same interview, Trump expressed surprise that his administration had commemorated Juneteenth every year.
"Oh really? We put out a statement? The Trump White House put out a statement?" he said, according to the Journal. "OK, OK. Good."
The White House did not publish a statement on its website commemorating Juneteenth this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? Tell us.
Billionaires are having a day. The White House is a good example of this happy time for the wealthiest among us, since it is the residence (once more) of our first billionaire president, Donald Trump. It was there that he was joined briefly by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, who slashed his way through much of the federal government, then exited to go tend to rockets, electric cars and other ventures. But not to worry. Left behind are five billionaires brought into office by Trump, the most of any administration. Those magnates spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reelect Trump and to throw him an inaugural party. Opinion: What's an oligarchy? With Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' bill, we're living in one. As a national phenomenon, the number of billionaires has grown from one in the 1920s (industrialist Henry Ford) to more than 900. Since the start of the 21st century, that group's wealth has expanded nine times, aided by Trump's 2017 tax cuts. For the country's lower half of earners, the expansion was double, mostly due to stimulus checks. I say all this to set up the question for you: What do we think of this conspicuous power of America's billionaires? Is it something to fear, as President Joe Biden warned on his way out the door, saying there is a growing oligarchy that "threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead"? Or are these exceptional people whom we should celebrate? They are, after all, the group that brought us Starlink, a satellite system that kept Ukraine afloat in its war against Russia. And Amazon. (Boy, I like not going to the store to buy that thingy to fix my dryer. And I get it the next day!) Opinion: You're not really mad at the Bezos, Sánchez luxury Venice wedding. You're just poor. We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum billionaires" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should billionaires be running the country? Tell us | Opinion
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court just saved kids from reading about Trump | Opinion
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
UN nuclear watchdog chief says Iran could again begin enriching uranium in ‘matter of months'
The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium 'in a matter of months,' contradicting President Donald Trump's claims the US set Tehran's ambitions back by decades. Rafael Grossi's comments appear to support an early assessment from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, first reported on by CNN, which suggests the United States' strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites last week did not destroy the core components of its nuclear program, and likely only set it back by months. While the final military and intelligence assessment has yet to come, Trump has repeatedly claimed to have 'completely and totally obliterated' Tehran's nuclear program. The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran began earlier this month when Israel launched an unprecedented attack it said aimed at preventing Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The US then struck three key Iranian nuclear sites before a ceasefire began. The extent of the damage to Tehran's nuclear program has been hotly debated ever since. US military officials have in recent days provided some new information about the planning of the strikes, but offered no new evidence of their effectiveness against Iran's nuclear program. Following classified briefings this week, Republican lawmakers acknowledged the US strikes may not have eliminated all of Iran's nuclear materials – but argued that this was never part of the military's mission. Asked about the different assessments, Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS's 'Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan': 'This hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is not a good idea.' 'The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,' he told Brennan, according to a transcript released ahead of the broadcast. 'It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage,' Grossi went on to say. 'Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.' Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes. 'We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending.' CNN has asked the White House for comment on Grossi's claims. Grossi stressed the need for the IAEA to be granted access to Iran, to assess nuclear activities. He said Iran had been disclosing information to the agency up until recent Israeli and US strikes, but that 'there were some things that they were not clarifying to us.' 'In this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view,' he said. 'What I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers.' The initial Pentagon assessment said Tehran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked but Trump has insisted nothing was moved. 'It's logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it (moving the material). But, as I said, we don't know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days,' Grossi told Brennan. Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program. Iran's parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons. CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed reporting.
