Michigan lawmakers react to State of the State address
'I think criticism is going to be pretty low. What we saw was a unifying message. I'm all on board for bringing people together, I think people are tired of feeling divided,' said Democratic Floor Leader John Fitzgerald of Wyoming.
Whitmer talks lowering costs, working together in State of the State address
'Long on public relation-tested points short on actual policy issues,' said Michigan Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township.
Whitmer focused on bipartisanship and working across party lines. That's even more important this year, with a split Michigan government. Lawmakers say it's about finding compromise, especially when it comes to Michigan roads.
'What we need to understand is it's not about getting everything that we want in the moment, but finding ways to find that incremental progress and find something that can last beyond just a single term of the House or Senate and I think we can do that with the governor's leadership,' Fitzgerald said.
'I'm cautiously optimistic. It's who I am. And ultimately, we have had governor after governor, and legislature after legislature that has kicked the can down the road and put band-aid fixes. And the time is, we can no longer afford band-aid solutions, we need a long-term, lasting solution that will live past this administration and it's successor. One that we can ensure that we have sustainable road funding and transportation infrastructure funding so that everyone in Michigan can get around and get around safely and affordably,' said Rep. Stephen Wooden, D-Grand Rapids.
Read Whitmer's full State of the State address
'I think it's incredibly important for us to find a solution, and for me, that sustainable, long-term solution is going to require bipartisanship in not just ideas, but votes,' said Michigan Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids.
'I have a pretty positive relationship with Gov. Whitmer. She's accessible to me, we talk frequently, and you know, you look at this, I put roads on the table. Republicans led on roads,' said Speaker of the House Rep. Matt Hall, R-Richland.'Consensus, at the end of the day, you have a Republican House, a Democrat Senate, a Democrat governor, and as I look at it, you gotta be serious to get to work and finish that work,' said Michigan Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township.
'I think it's pretty clear that the governor understands that she has a Republican House and Democrat Senate. Inherently, there will have to be compromise to get things done,' said Mark Huizenga, R-Walker.
'I love the idea of the governor being bipartisan — there's just 20 years of history proving otherwise. My hope is that her 180 U-turn is genuine and if so, I'm looking forward to working together with her to make sure we bring Michigan back,' said Rep. Bryan Posthumus, R-Rockford.
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
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire
California's Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla said his party should be willing to fight fire with fire, in light of Texas' potential, controversial gerrymandering plans. "If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November," Padilla said in an Aug. 3 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But they know they're in trouble," he continued. "And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power." The California senator was referencing Texas Republicans' proposed new map of their state's congressional districts, following President Donald Trump's urging that the GOP find a way to flip as many as five seats in next year's midterm elections. "Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats," Trump told reporters on July 15. Padilla likened Trump's ask of Texas Republicans to his request during his first term in office that a top Georgia official "find 11,780 votes" to put him over the top in the Electoral College for the 2020 election. Redistricting in the middle of the decade, rather than every ten years after new census data is collected, is rare. And the pushback from Democrats across the country has been widespread. Blue state leaders have threatened tit-for-tat responses, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has suggested redrawing his state's map to counteract Texas' efforts. (Newsom faces the challenge of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps, unlike Texas, where lawmakers dictate the boundaries.) Some California Democrats are wary, warning that a redistricting arms race could spiral and erode trust with voters. In response to those concerns, Padilla told NBC he believes it's appropriate for the Democrat-controlled state to evaluate its options. "The ideal scenario," he said, "is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this; they shouldn't do this. But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republicans ... the stakes are simply too high" for Democrats not to respond. Padilla also addressed recent comments from his fellow Democrats about the state of politics and American democracy, including Sen. Cory Booker's call for his party to "have a backbone." "It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines," Booker said from the Senate floor on July 29. Asked whether Booker's defiant approach was the appropriate stance for Democrats under the Trump administration, Padilla said, "Look, I think the extreme way in which this administration is conducting itself calls for higher and higher profile ways of pushing back." After announcing that she would not be running for California governor in 2026, former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on CBS's "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert. In her interview on July 31, Harris told Colbert, "Recently, I made the decision that, for now, I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken." Padilla agreed, in part, with Harris' take, saying, "I think the system is under duress." "Democrats are doing our part to try to stand up and push back," he added.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Who is Charlamagne tha God? What to know after radio host's Epstein-MAGA remark
President Donald Trump responded to Charlamagne tha God on Sunday, Aug. 3, calling him a "sleezebag" after the radio host suggested traditional Republicans will use rivaled interest in the Jeffrey Epstein files to take over the GOP again. Charlamagne tha God, whose real name is Lenard McKelvey, is co-host of the popular radio show "The Breakfast Club," which draws more than 4 million weekly listeners. The response from Trump came just days after McKelvey floated Jon Stewart as possible 2028 presidential candidate after former Vice President Kamala Harris said she won't run for California governor, leaving the door open for a potential 2028 run. "I think that traditional conservatives are going to take the Republican Party back," McKelvey said during an interview with the president's daughter-in-law on her Fox News show, "My View with Lara Trump." "I think this Epstein thing is going to be a way for traditional conservatives to take their party back, I really do." "I think they know this is the issue that has gotten the base riled up," he said, referencing the disgraced financier who died by suicide in August 2019. "The MAGA base isn't letting this issue go, and for the first time, they know they can probably take the party back and not piss off the MAGA base." After the interview, in a Truth Social post, Trump praised his daughter-in-law, called her "amazing and talented," and called the show "a big ratings success." The president then called McKelvey a "sleezebag" and discounted his intellegence. "He's a Low IQ individual, has no idea what words are coming out of his mouth, and knows nothing about me or what I have done," Trump wrote. "Just ending 5 Wars, including a 31 year bloodbath between Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, where Seven Million people have died, and there was no end in sight." Trump went on to claim in the post that McKelvey did not know about a myriad of other topics, including India and Pakistan, Iran, the border or the economy. 'Change agent': Charlamagne tha God floats Jon Stewart as possible 2028 candidate What is Charlamagne tha God's first name? Born in Charleston South Carolina, Charlamagne tha God's real name is Lenard Larry McKelvey. Epstein revival continues: Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell quietly moved out of Florida federal prison Who is Charlamagne tha God? Charlamange tha God, 47, is an American TV radio host and presenter. He is a co-host of the nationally syndicated radio show, "The Breakfast Club," which discusses a variety of topics including pop culture, celebrity gossip and politics. The podcast had been downloaded more than 1 billion times as of early June, iHeartMedia and The Black Effect Podcast Network have reported. McKelvey is also co-host of the podcast "Brilliant Idiots" and has authored two books: "Black Privilege"and "Shook One." According to his website, McKelvey is slated to be inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in October. What is 7-OH? Trump administration wants to products with it as 'an illicit substance' Who is Lara Trump? Lara Trump, 42, is married to the president's second son, Eric Trump. The Fox News host is also co-chair of the Republican National Committee. The president's daughter-in-law had been Trump's first choice for the U.S. Senate seat in North Carolina, where she was born. But late last month she opted out and endorsed Republican National Committee chair and former North Carolina GOP Chair Michael Whatley. Trump also endorsed Whatley for the slot in a late July social media post. What did Trump say about Charlamange tha God? In his Truth Media post, the president questioned why McKelvey is "allowed to use the word 'GOD'" when describing himself. "Can anyone imagine the uproar there would be if I used that nickname?" Trump wrote in the post. The White House has previously shared a photo of the president dressed as a the pope on its official social media pages, sparking both outlash and glee. The photo was posted just days after Pope Francis died on Easter this year at age 88. Contributing: Phillip Bailey and Sudiksha Kochi Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at nalund@ and follow her on X @nataliealund.
