In second town hall, Rep. Julie Fedorchak resolute in support for President Donald Trump's policies
Half of the 12 people who asked questions at Fedorchak's event, her second virtual town hall since taking office, focused on the impact of tariffs or raised concerns about the Trump administration's mass deportation plan.
Fedorchak, a Republican from North Dakota in her first term, repeatedly stated her support for the Trump administration's imposition of tariffs on U.S. trade partners, saying many of the country's trade relationships "aren't free or fair for Americans" when asked by a caller from Grand Forks.
"President Trump is trying to improve our trade relationships and trying to improve the trade deals we have with countries all over the world," Fedorchak said.
She was similarly resolute when asked for her thoughts on the administration's efforts to deport migrants en masse, a process that has seen the administration
defy court orders
and seek to
remove legal residents
and U.S. citizens
alongside undocumented immigrants.
Fedorchak asserted many of the migrants being targeted for deportation are "drug dealers" and "human traffickers," and invoked the murder of Laken Riley, whose death at the hands of an undocumented immigrant became a cause celebre for immigration opponents.
"I know there's a lot of good people who want to live here, and I want them here," Fedorchak said. "I want them here legally, but we have a mess here to deal with."
Asked by a caller from Fargo about the administration's efforts to dodge orders halting deportations, Fedorchak said it's "healthy" for each branch of government "to try to fulfill their mission to the greatest extent possible." She said she expects the administration to comply with judges' orders.
"I expect the administration to follow these court directives," she said, though she later expressed support for
a bill passed by House Republicans
that seeks to limit judges' ability to order nationwide injunctions.
She did not address multiple queries asking if she thought Congress should step in if the executive branch oversteps its bounds.
Fedorchak did say she supports "a more thoughtful, deliberate process" to shrinking the federal government than the administration's sweeping cuts and said she is working with the White House and federal agencies to address cuts that affect North Dakotans.
Two callers raised concerns about cuts to the Medicaid health program.
House Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which Fedorchak is a member,
have been instructed to find $880 billion in savings
in order to extend tax cuts passed during Trump's first term.
Fedorchak
has previously singled out Medicaid
as a major source of waste, fraud and inefficiency.
On Thursday, she said adding work requirements for "able-bodied, working-age people" and auditing Medicaid users for eligibility would save almost $500 billion and also proposed closing a loophole that allows states to shift their costs to the federal government.
"Most of the people we're talking to understand the need to make these reforms so that the program is sustainable long-term for the people who depend on it," she said.
One caller, from Bismarck, asked Fedorchak to push back against the Medicaid cuts, saying he is concerned how it would affect his autistic adult son as well as nursing facilities in small towns.
"If you put your foot down and say 'no, I'm not going to go along with this,' you actually have a lot of power, even though you're a freshman," he said, alluding to House Republicans' narrow majority.
Fedorchak reasserted that reforms are necessary and should not affect individuals like the caller's son.
A spokesperson for Fedrochak's office said after the forum that nearly 2,000 people tuned in.
"Julie took a wide range of questions from people from every corner of the state, which really goes to show how beneficial and productive this event format is for an at-large member," senior communications adviser Kate Roberts wrote in an email.
During Fedorchak's previous town hall, Forum News Service noted at the time, hundreds of people in the comments of the livestream expressed displeasure with her decision to host the town hall virtually and took umbrage with her remarks.
Facebook comments were restricted this time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The US fertility rate reached a new low in 2024, CDC data shows
Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of 'baby bonuses' that might encourage more couples to have kids. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. Advertisement 'We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths,' she said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024. In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621, and inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Advertisement Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment. 'Worry is not a good moment to have kids,' and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said. Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care. 'The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans,' she said. Increase in births in new data The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1% increase in births — about 33,000 more — last year compared to the prior year. That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born. But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s. What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the U.S. Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate. Advertisement That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said.
UPI
9 minutes ago
- UPI
Appeals court: Trump's birthright citizenship EO unconstitutional
US President Donald Trump participates in a reception with Republican Members of Congress in the East Room at the White House in Washington, DC on Tuesday, July 22, 2025. On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled his effort to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo July 24 (UPI) -- A divided federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its 2-1 ruling Wednesday. Though already blocked by the courts, Wednesday's ruling marks the first time an appellate court has judged the merit's of Trump's executive order. "We conclude that the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the three-judge panel said in its ruling. Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, stating the states lacked standing to bring the challenge. Trump issued his executive order among his first actions after being inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. It has since been met with challenges in court in lawsuits filed by both states and civil rights organizations. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War to grant citizenship to people who were born in the United States, including children of formerly enslaved Black people. The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment should be narrowly interpreted so that birthright citizenship is not granted to children if their parents are undocumented or if their parents' presence was lawful but temporary, such as those on work or student visas, at the time of birth. Trump, who campaigned on leading an anti-immigration administration, had vowed during his campaign to end birthright citizenship, despite legal experts questioning his ability to do so. The Democratic-led states countered that denying citizenship to children born here is unconstitutional, and that if his executive order was allowed to stand newborns would lose their ability to participate in American society. Washington State, Oregon, Arizona and Illinois filed their challenge to the executive order on Jan. 21. They were awarded an injunction in the case in early February. And last month, in a win for Trump in the case, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines 6-3 in a case that consolidated the plaintiffs from three separate litigations, that judges could not issue nationwide injunctions against the president, but allowed those in class-action lawsuits. "The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement Wednesday. "He cannot strip away the rights, liberties and protections of children born in our country."
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump to Visit Federal Reserve as Pressure Campaign Intensifies
The White House announced late Wednesday that President Trump would visit the Federal Reserve, increasing the administration's pressure on the central bank after attacks over its management of the economy and renovations underway at its headquarters in Washington. Mr. Trump will visit the Fed at 4 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, according to a daily schedule published by White House. No additional details were given about the visit beyond that it would last about an hour. It did not specify whether Mr. Trump would be meeting with Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair and the primary target of the president's repeated attacks on the central bank. Public opinion about the Fed chair has become increasingly polarized Percent saying they have at least a fair amount of confidence in (Fed chair name) to do or recommend the right thing for the economy Source: Gallup surveys conducted between 2001 and 2025 By The New York Times The Fed did not have an immediate comment about Mr. Trump's visit. Top administration officials were already scheduled to tour the construction site on Thursday, a concession that was granted to them by the Fed as it has sought to deflect criticism of the project, which involves a pair of buildings that are close to 100 years old and undergoing a roughly $2.5 billion revamp. In recent days, the central bank has published a virtual tour of the construction site, including footage of asbestos caulking being removed and blast-resistant windows being installed. It has also specified where certain features, like a rooftop terrace for staff, have been scaled back. Mr. Trump's visit marks an escalation in his pressure campaign against the Fed. Presidents do not typically go to the central bank in an official capacity, reflecting the longstanding independence of the institution from the White House. 8 % Federal funds target rate 6 No change 4 RECESSIONS 2 2000 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 20 % 18 Federal funds target rate 16 14 12 RECESSIONS 10 8 6 No change 4 2 1970 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 20 % 18 Federal funds target rate 16 14 12 RECESSIONS 10 8 6 4 No change 2 1970 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 20 % 18 Federal funds target rate 16 14 12 RECESSIONS 10 8 6 No change 4 2 1970 '75 '80 '85 '90 '95 2000 '05 '10 '15 '20 '25 Note: The rate since December 2008 is the midpoint of the federal funds target range. Source: Federal Reserve By Karl Russell Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
