Democrats target Republicans over Trump's legislative agenda in battleground states
The digital ads, which were first obtained by The Hill, will target voters in Virginia, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The ads will be placed on Facebook and Instagram, featuring images of receipts with how much each state is projected to lose in health care and funding, along with how much prices could go up.
'Strong Democratic state leaders can hold MAGA Republicans accountable for selling us out,' the ads read.
The ad is the latest effort from Democrats to hit Republicans over the budget legislation that President Trump signed into law earlier this month.
The massive spending package, which Trump dubbed 'the big beautiful bill,' would bring new tax breaks for older adults and overtime workers. The legislation includes funding to help hire border patrol agents and officers. The package also reduces green energy tax credits while cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs.
Democrats have sought to make the cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs an attack line going into the off-year elections in Virginia and New Jersey this November and next year's midterm elections.
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released on Friday found that 64 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said the Republican-led tax and spending bill will do 'more to help' wealthy people.
Another 7 percent said the package would do more to hurt wealthy people, while 27 percent said it would not make a difference.
Twenty-six percent said the bill would benefit middle-class people, while 51 percent said it would hurt them. Twenty-two percent said it would not make a difference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Budget office says Trump's tax law will add $3.4 trillion to deficits, leave 10 million uninsured
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's tax and spending law will add $3.4 trillion to federal deficits through 2034, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday, a slight increase in the projection that takes into account the final tweaks that Republicans made before getting the legislation over the finish line. More than 10 million people will be uninsured under the law in 2034 because of the law, CBO found, an improvement from an earlier projection that found 11.8 million people losing coverage over the decade. The release of the CBO analysis Monday comes at the end of a grueling legislative fight, but at the start of a longer political struggle to come as the two parties clash over the law's impact on the economy, healthcare and government programs. Republicans are touting the bill as a tax cut for all Americans, yet a recent AP-NORC poll found about two-thirds of U.S. adults expect the new tax law will help the rich as Democrats attack the legislation. The bill Trump signed into law on July 4 extended current tax rates for individuals that were set to expire at the end of this year and temporarily created new tax deductions for tips, overtime and auto interest loans for new vehicles assembled in the U.S. Republicans also used the bill to cut future spending on Medicaid and food assistance, and to phase out certain clean energy tax credits more quickly. Democrats were quick to highlight the CBO's findings. 'Today's report reminds us of something: facts are stubborn and the facts are clear,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. 'The big, ugly betrayal is a loser for the country and will be a loser for the Republicans." Republicans say the bill was critical to ensure most Americans didn't experience a significant tax increase next year. Trump and Republicans have also insisted that economic growth will exceed the CBO's projections for the next decade, erasing the projected deficits as more revenue comes into the Treasury than anticipated. Nonpartisan fiscal watchdogs also highlighted the CBO's latest projection. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said there will be a shorter-term 'sugar high' as stimulus makes its way through the economy. But modelers from across the ideological spectrum agree that any sustained economic changes are likely to be modestly beneficial, or negative. 'And not one serious estimate claims this bill will improve our fiscal situation,' MacGuineas said. 'Rather, positive growth effects are likely to be swamped by the effects of higher debt and interest rates.' The CBO said more than $1 trillion in deficit savings is generated through the health portions of the bill, which includes new work requirements for certain Medicaid beneficiaries in states that expanded the program through the Affordable Care Act. Some late changes on Medicaid were made to the bill to win over holdouts. One of those changes added a $50 billion fund for rural hospitals. __ Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report. Kevin Freking, The Associated Press
USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump releases files related to MLK assassination, despite King family opposition
The National Archives released over 240,000 pages of records in accordance with an executive order from January. The King family hopes people read the FBI files with a skeptical eye. President Donald Trump's administration on Monday released over 240,000 pages of records surrounding the 1968 assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., a move made despite objections from some of the civil rights icon's family. Over 240,000 pages of records have been made available on the website of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The Washington, D.C.-based agency says the release is in response to an executive order from Trump's White House dating back to January. King's family objected to the release, saying the Federal Bureau of Investigation's surveillance of the progressive leader was tainted by the agency's political bent at the time. "We recognize that the release of documents concerning the assassination of our father, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., has long been a subject of interest, captivating public curiosity for decades," the family said in a statement. But "the release of these files must be viewed within their full historical context. During our father's lifetime, he was relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign orchestrated by J. Edgar Hoover through the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Hoover's goal, the family says, was to find dirt on MLK in order to discredit him and the civil rights movement. Documents related to the King assassination are the latest trove of materials to be made public through Executive Order 14176. The Jan. 23, 2025 order also called for the release of materials related to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Files related to the JFK assassination were released in March. The full findings of the government investigations into the three killings have been hidden for decades, sparking wide-ranging speculation and preventing a sense of closure for many Americans. All three men were national and international icons whose assassinations — and the theories swirling around them — became the stuff of books, movies, controversy, and the pages of history itself. Trump's move to declassify the materials related to MLK also comes amid a political firestorm in Washington over the release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the former financier and convicted sex offender who died while awaiting trial in 2019.
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
BOSTON — Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's suit. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvard was told to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education.' Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.' Casey writes for the Associated Press.
