Marjorie Taylor Greene Criticizes Trump's Plan to Speed Weapons to Ukraine
'It's not just Ukraine; it's all foreign wars in general and a lot of foreign aid,' Ms. Greene said in an interview, arguing that Mr. Trump was turning his back on the America First approach that helped secure sweeping victories for him and Republicans. 'This is what we campaigned on. This is what I promised also to my district. This is what everybody voted for. And I believe we have to maintain the course.'
Her comments were in response to Mr. Trump's announcement from the Oval Office earlier in the day, when he laid out plans to sell weapons to NATO countries that would then send those arms to Ukraine. The president emphasized that the arrangement would come at no cost to U.S. taxpayers, addressing a key concern among Republicans increasingly wary of the war's price tag.
But Ms. Greene was unconvinced, arguing that Americans would bear costs, and that there was no scenario in which the United States would avoid involvement.
'Without a shadow of a doubt, our tax dollars are being used,' she said, arguing that indirect costs such as deploying American troops to provide training on the weapons being sent, would entangle the United States financially and logistically in the conflict. She also noted that the United States is the largest contributor to NATO, saying those indirect costs are being borne by American taxpayers. 'And so it is U.S. involvement,' she said.
The issue of foreign aid has repeatedly put Ms. Greene at odds with many in her own party, and recently, with Mr. Trump himself. She has also been harshly critical of the president's bellicose approach to Iran. She insists that Mr. Trump's base is with her, not with his recent more hawkish approach, which included a threat against Russia to accept a peace deal or be hit with crippling financial penalties.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
15 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Were Texas flood deaths avoidable? Here's what Americans said in a new poll
Many Americans believe the deaths caused by recent floods in Texas could have been prevented, and most think that the government's response was imperfect, according to new polling. The YouGov/Economist survey — conducted July 11-14 — comes after central Texas was pummeled by flash floods beginning on July 4, when the Guadalupe River surged over its banks, sweeping away homes and leaving at least 134 dead and about 100 missing, ABC News reported. Among the worst affected areas was Camp Mystic, a Christian camp in Kerr County, where NBC News reported 27 campers and counselors lost their lives. President Donald Trump traveled to Texas on July 11 and met with the families of victims. He said he wished to express 'the love and support and the anguish of our entire nation,' CBS News reported. 'I've never seen anything like it,' he added, 'a little narrow river that becomes a monster…' In the aftermath of the devastating disaster, multiple organizations and individuals have faced scrutiny over their preparedness. Among them were Kerr County officials, who did not install a comprehensive flood warning system despite being aware of its necessity, according to the Texas Tribune. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also faced criticism over its response, and the New York Times reported that it failed to answer thousands of calls from Texas flood survivors Here is a breakdown of the findings. Were deaths avoidable? In the survey — which sampled 1,680 U.S. adults — 52% of respondents said that most of the deaths could have been prevented if the government had been more adequately prepared. Twenty-nine percent said the deaths were unavoidable, and 19% said they didn't know. On this question, there was a sizable partisan divide. Most Democrats and independents — 74% and 53%, respectively — called the deaths avoidable, while just 28% of Republicans said the same. Government response The poll — which has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points — also asked respondents to judge the government response to the flooding. A plurality, 38%, labeled the overall government response as poor, while smaller shares described it as fair (14%), good (19%) or excellent (14%). Individual officials received somewhat similar marks. When asked about Trump's response, 42% said it was poor, while fewer said it was fair (11%), good (15%), and excellent (21%). Meanwhile, 36% said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's response was poor. Eight percent said it was fair; 14% said it was good and 13% said it was excellent. Presidents visiting disaster sites Additionally, respondents were asked about presidents visiting disaster sites (the survey began on the day Trump traveled to Texas). A majority, 64%, said presidents should visit locations of disasters because it demonstrates their solidarity. Just 17% said they should not do this 'because it takes resources away from the disaster response.' The results broke along similar lines when respondents were asked specifically about Trump. Sixty-five percent said they believed Trump 'should travel to Texas to survey the damage and meet with people affected by recent flooding.' Meanwhile, 20% said he should not do this, and 15% said they were not sure.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why consumer surveys vs. hard data show 2 versions of the economy
Boston Consulting Group chief economist, managing director, and partner Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak joins Market Domination Overtime host Josh Lipton to discuss the state of the US economy as consumer sentiment raises red flags while economic data shows resilience. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. As investors, Phillip, obviously we're always looking for lines of sight into the consumer and how how they're holding up. You say here, consumers are not to be trusted on the economy. What do you mean by that, Phillip? Well, so consumer sentiment has delivered a number of false alarms the last few years. Remember the inevitable recession that never arrived? A lot a lot of times it was pinned on consumer sentiment, which was was very low. But in the end, consumers are pretty good at judging their own finances. So if you ask them how they're feeling about their own finances, 75% say pretty good or even even good. But if you ask them to judge the economy, suddenly they say only 25% say the economy's doing well. What why is that, Phillip? Well, I think a lot of it has to do with observability of facts. You know what's on your payslip, you know what's going in and out of your bank account. But why would the average person in the street know much about how the economy's doing? So they're substituting observability with pessimism, right? So pessimism, where does that come from? Well, it comes from media, social media, discomfit, TikTok. Oh, always the media. It always comes out to media, Phillip, I get it. But that really that is interesting. Also, and I want to get your take on this when we talk about sentiment readings, you also often hear people say there is a political element to it, correct? I think that's fair. So if you look at um consumer sentiment by party affiliation, it's very clear that it's really a political proxy, like which party do you vote for? I mean, just an example, um inflation expectations. So Republicans this year uh consistently said inflation would be as low as 1%. At some point they even thought it was negative. It would prices would be falling. And Democrats thought, well, and continue to say inflation will be as high as 10 or 11%. Well, neither of these numbers is remotely credible, right? And unfortunately, it's not like you can just add them up and divide them by two, get an average, right? You can't get a bipartisan reading by averaging them out. If you add 1 and 10%, it's 11 by 2, 5.5. So, 5.5% inflation is too high. It's outside the range of what's plausibly playing out this year. As we saw this morning, yeah. So so what do you let me ask you this. What do you do with these sentiment indicators? Do I ignore them? What How How should I approach them? So I've been telling clients for the last few years, uh don't listen to what consumers say, watch what they're doing with their money. Right? You can look at consumer spending. So, just focus on what they're actually doing. What they're actually doing. And if you look at household spending, if you look at retail, I mean, household consumption's been a straight line up since, you know, the first COVID dip and the bounce back, it's just been a straight line higher, all the way through, little wiggles here and there, but basically a straight line up, totally flying in the face of what consumer sentiment surveys said all through those two, three years that we've gone through. Sign in to access your portfolio
Time Magazine
17 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Republicans Scrap Cuts to PEPFAR Anti-AIDS Program
Senate Republicans reached an agreement with the White House on Tuesday to preserve funding for a flagship global HIV and AIDS relief program known as PEPFAR, backing off a proposed $400 million cut that had drawn sharp opposition from within their own ranks and threatened to derail President Donald Trump's sweeping package of spending rescissions. The deal would shield PEPFAR from the Trump Administration's plan to cancel billions in previously approved but unspent federal funds. The decision came after several Republican senators objected to including the widely celebrated HIV/AIDS initiative in a list of programs targeted for clawbacks under Trump's campaign to root out what he has called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, discussed the proposal during a closed-door lunch with GOP senators on Tuesday, telling reporters afterwards that backing off the PEPFAR cuts was a minor change to the bill. 'From a $9.4 billion package to a $9 billion package, that's something that's very exciting for the American taxpayer,' he said. 'Big chunks of this proposal are not falling out.' The scaled-down measure would still claw back unused funds from USAID and public broadcasting. But the move to preserve PEPFAR funding may avoid a Republican revolt, particularly from key lawmakers like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and had emerged as a leading critic of the proposed cut. 'I'm very pleased that the funding for PEPFAR has been preserved,' Collins told reporters on Tuesday. 'This is something I've worked hard to protect from the beginning.' Still, she said she remained undecided on whether to support the final bill, pointing to 'other problematic parts of the rescissions package,' such as cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Launched in 2003 by President George W. Bush, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is widely considered one of America's most consequential programs in Africa, credited with saving over 25 million lives and scaling back the AIDS epidemic. The bipartisan program has long enjoyed support across party lines, and its proposed defunding sparked fierce backlash not only from Democrats but also from GOP members. 'There was a lot of interest from our members on doing something on PEPFAR,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday. 'That's reflected in the substitute.' White House officials had previously justified the cut by citing claims from some social conservatives that PEPFAR funds were supporting abortion services overseas after a report found that 21 abortions were performed in Mozambique, where abortion is legal, under the program. Republicans said those abortions violated the Helms Amendment, which restricts the use of foreign aid funds to pay for abortions. 'It is essential that what appears to be an isolated incident in Mozambique does not undermine the overwhelming success and integrity of PEPFAR's mission," Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Lois Frankel of Florida said in a statement earlier this year. While the news on Tuesday was welcoming for supporters of PEPFAR, the program has still seen significant disruptions as the Trump Administration guts foreign aid programs, including USAID, which was PEPFAR's main implementing agency. The State Department is seeking $2.9 billion in funding to continue HIV-AIDS programs in the next fiscal year—far lower than PEPFAR's current budget of more than $4 billion. The rescissions package, a Trump Administration initiative under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aims to cancel previously appropriated but unspent federal funds. The package passed the House last month by a narrow 214–212 margin and would need to be reapproved by the lower chamber if modified in the Senate. Though supporters have billed the measure as a symbolic gesture of budget-cutting resolve, the actual fiscal impact of the package is small. The $9 billion in rescinded funds represents less than 0.3% of the $3.4 trillion tax-and-spending bill Trump signed earlier this month—which he has dubbed his 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Even with the PEPFAR change, Vought confirmed the package would still include $1.1 billion in cuts to public broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, along with another $8.3 billion in cuts for the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID. Conservatives have long targeted the CPB, which supports PBS and NPR, accusing it of liberal bias. But some rural-state senators have expressed concern that defunding the agency could devastate small public radio and television stations that rely on federal support for as much as 30% of their budgets. Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, for instance, secured a side agreement with the White House to redirect unallocated funds toward tribal broadcasters to alleviate some of those concerns. Still, some lawmakers remain uneasy about the lack of clarity surrounding the cuts. 'It's unclear to me how you get to $9 billion,' Collins said, noting that the White House has not provided a detailed breakdown of which programs would be protected and which would be slashed. Collins showed reporters a 1992 rescission message from President George H.W. Bush as an example of how such proposals should be detailed—comparing it unfavorably to the Trump Administration's request. With procedural votes expected to begin late Tuesday and a marathon voting session on amendments scheduled for Wednesday, the coming days will test whether the Trump Administration's scaled-back proposal can overcome internal divisions—and whether the President's threats to withhold his endorsement of any Republican who votes against his rescissions package will sway reluctant senators.
