Senate Democratic campaign arm hits Republicans over Trump's first 100 days in ad
The ad campaign, titled '100 Days of Cowardice,' comes as the second Trump administration reaches its 100 day mark on Tuesday.
The 30-second spots are slated to run in the battleground states of Michigan, New Hampshire and Georgia, which are set to have open Senate contests next year.
The campaign also includes targeted spots against Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) that will run in their respective states.
The ads hit Republicans over Trump's tariffs, inflation, as well as potential cuts to Medicaid and Social Security. The ad also includes footage of the president's billionaire adviser Elon Musk wielding a chainsaw on stage at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year.
The effort is the latest from Democrats to tie Republicans in swing states to Trump as polls show the president's approval rating dropping. A New York Times/Siena College poll released last week shows Trump with a 42 percent approval rating, while a CNN poll released on Sunday showed the president with a 41 percent approval rating.
The Senate and the House will return from recess on Monday as Republicans in both chambers work to pass Trump's legislative agenda. The proposed package would include $9.3 billion in cuts already approved by Congress to NPR, PBS and the State Department, The Hill previously reported.
Additionally, lawmakers will aim to extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts while increasing spending on defense and border security through the budget reconciliation process.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Los Angeles Times
a minute ago
- Los Angeles Times
What can retirees do to deduct medical expenses?
Dear Liz: My wife and I, both in our early 90s, are fortunate to have good health insurance. However, we have significant expenses that are not covered. As you might expect, we are retired and receive income from Social Security, pensions, annuities and investments. Are we eligible to use flexible health accounts funded with pretax dollars? If so, what's the best way to set that up and how would we pay those uncovered health bills? Answer: Unfortunately, you don't have access to pretax accounts that could help you pay medical bills. Flexible spending accounts are offered by employers, and contributions are limited annually (in 2025, the limit is $3,300). Health savings accounts have higher limits but require you to have a qualifying high-deductible health insurance plan. Once you're on Medicare, as you two presumably are, you are no longer allowed to contribute to an HSA. You might be able to deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. To claim the deduction, you would need to have enough itemized expenses to exceed the standard deduction, which in 2025 is $34,700 for a married couple filing jointly who are 65 and older. (The standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $31,500, while people 65 and older get an additional deduction of $1,600 each.) There's also a new, temporary $6,000 deduction for people 65 and older that is available whether you itemize or take the standard deduction. This bonus deduction begins to phase out for adjusted gross income above $150,000 for married couples filing jointly and disappears at AGIs above $250,000. This deduction is set to expire after the 2028 tax year. Dear Liz: I was perplexed by your column in which you pooh-poohed pay-on-death and transfer-on-death accounts in favor of trusts. But you gave no specific explanation. Rather, you said trusts 'generally allow a smoother, more organized settlement of the estate than other probate-avoidance options.' Would you please explain what is smoother and more organized than POD and TOD transfers? (Beneficiary deeds fall into the same category as POD and TOD, to my way of thinking.) These transfers simply involve a copy of the death certificate and some minimal paperwork. What could be simpler? Answer: The fact that you asked this question suggests you may not be familiar with the many ways these transfers can cause unintended problems. An estate planning attorney could fill you in. One issue covered previously in this column is the fact that the person settling the estate typically needs money to pay final bills. If all the funds in the estate have been transferred to beneficiaries, the executor would have to beg for money to be returned (with no guarantee beneficiaries will cooperate) or pay the expenses out of their own pocket. Another obvious issue is unequal distribution if you have more than one heir. Account values can change over time, leading to sometimes dramatic differences in what the beneficiaries receive. Speaking of change, it's the one constant in life. A living trust allows you to easily update your estate plan in one centralized place as circumstances change. Altering beneficiary designations can take a lot more work, and it's easy to miss an account if you have several. Beneficiary designations offer limited contingency planning. If the beneficiaries die before you or otherwise can't inherit, the account could come back into your estate and be subject to probate. Also, many people forget to update their beneficiaries after major life changes, which can mean the wrong people inherit. More than one ex-spouse has received retirement funds or life insurance proceeds because the beneficiary form wasn't updated. Another unfortunately common occurrence is an inheritance that disqualifies a disabled beneficiary from receiving government benefits. You also can't control how money is spent with a beneficiary designation, which can be a problem if the beneficiary is a minor, an addict or a spendthrift. Plus, people get sued. Beneficiary designations offer no protection against creditors, while a properly written trust can help protect your assets and your heirs' inheritance. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the potential issues with beneficiary designations. They can be a solution for people with limited funds who can't afford to pay an estate planning attorney, or when they're part of a coordinated estate plan. Many people set up a trust for real estate and financial accounts, for example, and use beneficiaries for retirement accounts, notes Jennifer Sawday, an estate planning attorney in Long Beach. The more money you have and the more complex your situation, the more you — and your heirs — would benefit from expert, individualized advice. Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the 'Contact' form at
San Francisco Chronicle
a minute ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Cincinnati officials discuss city crime and widespread response to video of violent fight
Days after a brawl that injured six people in Cincinnati, the mayor and other city leaders said Friday they would beef up law enforcement patrols but criticized how the much-shared video of the fight had portrayed the city in what they see as an unfair and cynical light. 'Let me be clear, there is no place for violent crime in Cincinnati, whether it's a fight or gun violence,' Mayor Aftab Pureval said. 'We will pursue those responsible and we will hold them accountable no matter who they are.' Video of the fight quickly went viral, and conservatives leaders and influencers seized on the brawl to point out what they see as lawless urban areas in America. Those voices included Vice President JD Vance, Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and the vice president's half brother, Cory Bowman, who is running to be mayor of Cincinnati. A video of the fight shows a crowd milling about before several people start throwing punches. One man falls to the ground and is repeatedly punched and kicked by bystanders. Another woman is punched in the face and falls to the ground, lying motionless before another woman helps her. She can be seeing bleeding from the mouth. The mayor acknowledged on Friday the perception remained that the city was dangerous, but he pointed out that data showed the violent crime was declining in the city. Pureval also said 'there's a concerning increase in burglaries and breaking and entering, and shootings in some specific areas' without providing the data. 'Currently too many Cincinnatians don't feel safe,' he said. 'All of us, especially me, are clear-eyed and working urgently to fix that.' Pureval said he was working with Republican Gov. Mike DeWine to deploy state highway patrol to work highways into the city, which should free up more police officers. He also said police units like SWAT and the Civil Disturbance Response Team will expand their reach in the city. Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge said five men and one woman 'were subjected to unimaginable physical violence' in the brawl. She didn't identify them. She also said six people have been charged with assault and rioting for playing a role in the brawl, three of whom are in custody. 'This remains an open investigation, and I want to assure you, we will not stop until justice is finally served,' she told reporters, adding that they plan to release footage of the brawl, including body camera footage next week. But several speakers, including a pastor and a council member, talked about how the fight had been racialized and several blamed conservative Republicans for fueling that narrative. 'We would not be here and this will not be national news if this was a group of Black people that jumped on other Black people,' Pastor Damon Lynch, III told reporters. 'Obviously it's national news because it's been racialized.' Lynch said critics were focused on the Black participants but haven't mentioned a white man who, he says, could be seen in a video of the brawl slapping a Black man during the fight. 'Nobody's asking why didn't he just walk away?" Lynch said. Council Member Scotty Johnson also criticized the media for playing the brawl on a loop all week. 'What role do you play in quoting misdirected national leaders talking about a city that is on the right track, but they are doing everything they can to try take us off that track,' Johnson said. Toward the end of the press conference, a reporter asked Pureval how he would deal with the racial tensions in the city that have been exacerbated by this brawl. 'It's overt racial tensions that have been claimed by irresponsible leaders, who have unfortunately cynically tried to take advantage of this awful fight and try and divide us,' he said, noting that Cincinnati 'has a long history of being, on the on the very front foot of racial justice' including as a stop on the Underground Railroad.
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
