Begich's message to Alaskans amid Trump firings: Hold tight
Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, said in a series of speeches this week that he will not seek to stop President Donald Trump's wave of federal agency firings but will try to roll some of them back through the federal budget process.
Speaking to the Alaska Municipal League, Alaska Legislature and Juneau Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday and Thursday in Juneau, Alaska's lone member of Congress said he is unaware of the full scale of the Trump administration's actions and asked that Alaskans send him information about cuts and frozen programs.
'If you've got a grant program or a lending program or another government program that you're concerned about that you believe fits within the core scope of the federal government, please reach out to our office. We want to know the details so that we can represent you with the appropriate agency and have those conversations,' Begich said.
'If you know someone who's been laid off … that you believe has a core government function, and they would like to provide the details to justify that, we'd be happy to take a look at it and make that case. The process for government reductions in spending is not going to be a perfect one, and I'm not here to represent to you that it will be, but we want to make sure that Alaska's interests are protected.'
Begich traveled to Juneau this week to deliver his first speech to the Alaska Legislature since being elected to office in November. In the process, he discussed Alaska's economic potential, including energy development, fisheries and his recent bills supporting Alaska Native communities.
'Let us work for you. Work with our office. We want to be advocates for you,' he said. 'Since taking office, I've been focused on cutting through the noise and making sure Alaska gets results.'
During his electoral campaign, Begich emphasized the threat posed by the federal debt and said he would seek to reduce federal spending.
Since taking office, he has generally praised the actions of the 'Department of Governmental Efficiency,' an arm of the White House – not a federal department – managed by billionaire Elon Musk. Democratic attorneys general have said Musk has been given virtually unchecked power. Begich views it differently.
'Elon Musk may be running that effort, but everything that gets done has to be approved and signed off by the President,' Begich said in response to a question asking about the group's leadership.
Asked by a Juneau Chamber about the DOGE-directed firings of local residents, Begich responded that he believes DOGE is finding waste and abuse, and gave examples of million-dollar appropriations for international democracy-building and education efforts.
'There's a lot of waste in government. There's a lot of things that need to be cut,' he said, explaining that he believes that government debt poses a large threat to young Americans.
Asked at the Juneau Chamber about the federal balance of powers and whether he believes Congress should act to stop DOGE's work, he said that he doesn't think so.
'I recognize there's going to be challenges in the courts about the extent to which the executive branch has authority in order to cut some of these programs, but that's the jurisdiction of the courts,' he said, suggesting that prior presidents have taken similar actions.
Some Democratic members of the Alaska Legislature who heard Begich's remarks on DOGE said they were completely dissatisfied with his position.
'It's reckless, it's capricious, and it's sort of arbitrary, and it's certainly not surgical, and he's sort of backing this,' said Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage. 'And sure he makes a good argument about the national debt and all the rest. I get that there's some serious concerns there. But this is not going to go well.'
'Don Young and I had our disagreements, but I'll say this: there's no way he would have tolerated this sloppy, corrupt DOGE b—s—,' said Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, on social media after Begich's remarks.
'And they're doing it explicitly to partially finance (most of it will be in debt) an upper-income tax cut for people like Nick Begich III. No wonder he's part of their caucus. Putting Alaska last,' Dunbar said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
1,000 National Guard troops leaving L.A. soon, Pentagon says
Nearly two months after President Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the National Guard to Los Angeles to quell public unrest over immigration raids, the Pentagon on Wednesday announced that it was withdrawing more than a thousand troops. The departure of about 1,350 members of the National Guard, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, represents just the latest rollback of troops from L.A. this month since more than 5,000 National Guard members and Marines were deployed to the city in June. Sean Parnell, chief spokesman for the Pentagon, said that approximately 250 California Guard members would remain in L.A. to protect federal agents and buildings. 'We greatly appreciate the support of the more than 5,000 Guardsmen and Marines who mobilized to Los Angeles to defend Federal functions against the rampant lawlessness occurring in the city,' Parnell said in a statement. Mayor Karen Bass, who had dubbed the deployment an 'armed occupation,' was quick to celebrate the troops departure. 'Another win for Los Angeles,' Bass said on X Wednesday night. 'We will continue this pressure until ALL troops are out of L.A.' The troops' presence in Los Angeles — and their role of protecting federal agents conducting immigration raids — was fiercely contested. President Trump said the troops were necessary to maintain order as the administration ramped up its immigration raids and protesters covered downtown buildings in graffiti, set Waymos on fire and clashed with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. But many of California's key Democratic leaders said there was no need for federal troops in the city: local law enforcement could handle the protesters, they said, and the presence of federal troops in highly militarized gear only inflamed tension in the region. They also argued that federal officials had deployed the troops illegally. Just a day after the first convoys of National Guard troops rumbled into to L.A. on June 8, Gov. Gavin Newsom sued federal officials, saying that the deployment exceeded federal authority and violated the 10th amendment in an 'unprecedented usurpation' of state power. Newsom also complained that the deployment had diverted the California National Guard from critical duties such as combating wildfires and interrupting the drug trade at the U.S.-Mexico border and across California. His office released a statement responding to the latest draw down Thursday. 'President Trump is realizing that his political theater backfired. This militarization was always unnecessary and deeply unpopular,' the statement said. 'The President must do the right thing to end this illegal militarization now because the economic and societal impacts are dire. The women and men of our military deserve more than to be used as props in the federal government's propaganda machine.' Over the weeks, as the L.A. protests subsided, the troops did not appear to have a clear role and many appeared to be bored. By July, a source within Newsom's office with knowledge of the military operation told The Times that only about 3% of the troops were taking part in daily missions. 'There's not much to do,' one Marine told The Times as he stood guard earlier this month outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Westwood. The majority of National Guard members were left largely milling about the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos in an operation that the Pentagon had estimated would cost about $134 million. On July 15, the Pentagon withdrew nearly 2,000 California National Guard soldiers from L.A. and on July 21 it withdrew 700 active-duty Marines.
New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mass shooting on Park Avenue shows how dangerous a Mayor Mamdani would be for NYC
New Yorkers' collective sense of safety was bruised and rattled this week — a chilling wake-up call. On Monday, a deranged gunman waltzed into a Park Avenue skyscraper toting an M4 rifle. There he killed four innocents, including 36-year-old NYPD Officer Didarul Islam. The flood of frantic 9-1-1 calls reporting an active shooter drew an immediate and robust police response, led by officers in its specially trained Strategic Response Group, who arrived on the scene within six minutes. Both Officer Islam's sacrifice and the selfless professionalism of the hundreds of officers who bravely rushed to the scene brought home a crucial reality: The NYPD is an institution the city simply cannot live without. None of this is good for the victor of the Democratic mayoral primary, Zohran 'Nature Is Healing' Mamdani, who has a long and troubling history of statements deriding, taunting and calling to defund and dismantle the NYPD — whose officers are often the ones holding the very thin line between good and evil, order and chaos. Perhaps sensing a vibe shift, the mayoral hopeful called a press conference Wednesday to do some damage control. His performance struck me as contrived, insincere and deeply misguided. The policy proposal at the center of Mamdani's prepared statement — stronger national gun controls and a nationwide assault weapons ban — was especially frustrating. After all, how effective will additional gun controls be in a city with fewer police, and fewer opportunities to enforce those laws? During his campaign, Mamdani declared his intention to get the NYPD out of traffic enforcement. Yet more than 40% of the NYPD's gun arrests begin as traffic stops, as former NYPD executive John Hall explained in a 2021 Manhattan Institute report. And what would a Mayor Mamdani propose be done with gun-toting lawbreakers who are caught in a city without the jail space to house them? Seems like something he should think about, given his full-throated support for the plan to close the Rikers Island jail complex and replace it with a system whose maximum capacity is approximately half of the current jail population. Mamdani on Wednesday repeatedly turned up his nose at opportunities to retract any of his many troubling anti-NYPD statements. Rather than exhibiting sincere contrition for his anti-cop extremism, Mamdani chose deflection and indignation when reporters asked whether would explicitly disavow his prior calls to defund and dismantle the NYPD, or his smearing of its officers as racist. In fact, Mamdani merely restated the idea undergirding many of the 2020 calls to defund the police: That other actors — like violence interrupters, social workers and, as Mamdani has proposed, community safety agents — are better suited to take over NYPD functions like traffic enforcement, mental health crisis response and even domestic violence calls. He continued to defend his calls to dismantle the SRG unit, despite its admirable response Monday. Worse yet, he actually thought it appropriate to reiterate criticisms of the unit for its handling of unruly protests, accusing officers of First Amendment suppression and excessive force. Even in the wake of tragedy, Mamdani couldn't fully conceal his inner NYPD critic. If Wednesday's event was meant to make Mamdani's candidacy more palatable to those who had reservations about his history of anti-police stances, it missed the mark. From beginning to end he was, in every way, the wrong man for the moment. Cop-haters like Mamdani fail to acknowledge a fact the rest of us recognize: Our police are our protectors. The work they do — whether it's arresting armed gang members, taking fire from mass shooters or enforcing the subway fare — shields us from the crime and disorder that once defined this city. The calls coming from those Park Avenue offices on Monday were not asking for mediators, or social workers, or unarmed safety agents. They were pleading for armed police officers. This attack reminds us that the public rarely has control over whether or when evil will darken our doorsteps. But we do have some control over who will be there to meet it when it does. For that, those of us who live or work in the Big Apple will always owe the police our thanks and support. But from Mamdani, they are owed an apology. Rafael A. Mangual is the Nick Ohnell fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a contributing editor of City Journal, and author of the book 'Criminal (In)Justice.' All views expressed are those of the author and not the Manhattan Institute.
The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals court scrutinizes Trump's emergency tariffs as deadline looms
An appeals court on Thursday scrutinized President Trump's assertion that emergency powers justify his worldwide tariffs. Thursday's high-stakes oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit came one day ahead of Trump's deadline for dozens of countries to strike trade deals or face higher 'reciprocal' duties. To justify the sweeping moves, Trump cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law authorizing the president to issue certain economic sanctions in an emergency to counter an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' 'It's just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates,' said Judge Timothy Dyk. 'It's really kind of asking for an extraordinary change to the whole approach,' continued Dyk, an appointee of former President Clinton. Presidents have invoked other statutes to impose tariffs, but Trump in February became the first president to attempt to do so by invoking the emergency law. 'Why is that?' pressed Judge Jimmie Reyna, an appointee of former President Obama. 'Has there been no national emergency?' The Justice Department argues that IEEPA has for decades been among the 'most powerful tools' a president can use to protect national security, foreign policy and the economy. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division, said Congress has long given presidents 'broad discretion' to deal with national emergencies and that IEEPA is a tool that lets Trump to put pressure on trading partners. 'Congress wanted to provide broad and flexible authority in the context of emergencies, and I think you have to read the phrase 'regulate importation' in the context of an extraordinary delegation of power to the President that can be checked by Congress in specific cases,' Shumate said, pointing to specific language also used by President Nixon to impose tariffs in 1971. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, an appointee of the second former President Bush, asked if it amounts to a 'bargaining chip.' 'Exactly,' Shumate replied. Trump first used IEEPA in February to announce levies on Canada, China and Mexico — pointing to the fentanyl crisis as the emergency — but, in April, the president expanded to a 10 percent global baseline tariff, with higher rates for some countries. The expansion, deemed 'Liberation Day' by Trump, was attributed to an emergency over trade deficits. The lawsuit was brought by 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses. The administration appealed after the U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated the levies, and the Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until deciding the case. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, began his argument with a warning that the government believes Trump can do 'whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants,' so long as he declares a national emergency. The tariffs amount to a 'breathtaking claim to power' not asserted by any president in 200 years, and one with 'staggering' consequences, Katyal said. The plaintiffs argue IEEPA can't be read to endorse tariffs. But even if that reading is possible, the plaintiffs point to a series of decisions from the Supreme Court's conservative justices holding that the executive branch must have clear congressional authorization to carry out matters of significant economic and political significance. 'This is not an elephant in a mouse hole,' said Katyal, invoking a phrase the justices often use to explain the principle, known as the major questions doctrine. 'This is a galaxy in a keyhole,' he continued. Though Katyal, a high-profile Supreme Court advocate who served as solicitor general under former President Obama, garnered sympathy with his concerns, several judges took issue with the plaintiffs' position that trade deficits aren't a valid emergency because they have existed for decades. Those judges suggested the challengers were sidestepping how Trump's tariff order additionally points to recent consequences of the deficits, like a hollowed-out U.S. manufacturing base and undermined critical supply chains. Moore, the chief judge, at one point chastised the states' attorney for claiming Trump had only talked about it in a single sentence. 'I will walk it back,' Benjamin Gutman, Oregon's solicitor general, conceded. The arguments come on the eve of the cutoff Trump established for nearly 200 countries to strike a deal to avoid higher rates on goods. Trump reached agreements with South Korea and the European Union this week setting tariffs at 15 percent, and last week, he reached similar deals with Japan and the Philippines. Trump on Thursday announced Mexico's tariffs would be extended at current rates for another 90 days, while other countries have until Aug. 1 to make a deal with the president or face the heavier rates. Nearly 100 people, mostly attorneys, filled the second-floor courtroom Thursday where 11 of the Federal Circuit's 12 active judges weighed Trump's tariffs. Judge Pauline Newman, the nation's oldest federal judge at 98, did not participate; she was suspended by her fellow judges from hearing new cases over concerns about her mental fitness, which she has challenged in court. However, she was seated in the public gallery for the arguments along the aisle in the second row. Ahead of the hearing, Trump on Truth Social wished his lawyers 'good luck in America's big case.'
