LIVE COVERAGE
A Petty, Vicious Wall Of Shame
The awful keeps spewing. The latest proof there is truly, repulsively no bottom: The most broken, powerful human being on the planet has added to his crappy, gaudy, reality-show "Presidential Walk of Fame" bronze plaques below the photos denoting a boorish, revisionist "history" of each president. Inevitably, he lobs the crudest insults at his direct predecessors - "divisive" Obama, "crooked" Biden - while praising his own supreme reign. America on the fucking, endless, childish ugly of it: "This is so exhausting."
As always, there are of course more substantive horrors underway. Pam Bondi has told the FBI to create a list of domestic terrorist groups - the non-existent Antifa and anyone else who espouses “radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism or anti-Christianity” - and establish a “cash reward system” to encourage them to snitch on each other. Because what climate change/it still snows doesn't it?, Trump is also dismantling Colorado's National Center for Atmospheric Research, home to the largest federal research lab on climate change and natural disasters.
In addition, because what science?, anti-vax crackpot RFK Jr's Health and Human Services (sic) Department has terminated seven multi-million-dollar grants to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is now suing said crackpot for his COVID vaccine changes. The initiatives were aimed at reducing sudden infant death, improving adolescent health, preventing fetal alcohol syndrome, identifying autism early and other worthy goals; officials said they were cancelled because the group used "identity-based language," including "racial disparities" and "pregnant people." Really.
Finally, Pee Wee German Stephen Miller issued a fascist mission statement in support of our pointless, upcoming war against Venezulela, arguing the U.S. has long "operated as a 'reverse empire'" that enriched foreign nations and sacrificed our wealth and security while "all we got in return were migrants." "No more," he raves. "America's might will secure America's rights...For Americans, first and always." By which, many clarified, he means, "rich white people. Everyone else to the camps." Other comments: "Sounds like Chap. 15 in Mein Kampf," "Sounds better in the original German," and, "Miller is a grotesque, shrill, squirrel of a thing."
All of these efforts, lest we forget, have been undertaken to please a small, sick, empty shell of a man who Avatar director James Cameron calls "the most narcissistic asshole in history since fucking Nero." Now, in a particularly infuriating (for those of us who cherish facts) and petty move, he's now installed "a tantrum cast in bronze," a wall of grievance-oozing plaques added to the photos along his cheesy, race-to-the-bottom "Presidential Walk of Fame" outside the West Wing "as a tribute to past Presidents, good, bad and somewhere in the middle." And "as a student of history" (sic), Press Barbie hilariously brags, Trump himself authored "many of its eloquently written descriptions" - evidently what he's been doing when not golfing. One patriot: "Well done, dumbass."
They are, of course, crude, juvenile, self-serving garbage. Reagan's plaque boasts he was "a fan" of Trump. Bill Clinton's notes "his wife Hillary" lost to Trump. The plaque for "Barack Hussein Obama" acknowledges him as our first Black President before calling him "one of the most divisive political figures in American history." He allegedly "passed the highly ineffective Unaffordable Care Act," caused the spread of ISIS (no mention of W's contributions), weaponized federal bureaucracies against opponents, spied on Trump's 2016 campaign and created "the Russia Russia Russia hoax, the worst political scandal in American history." Sigh.
Biden, already trolled with the image of an autopen - the eloquent author is 12 - gets worse. "Sleepy Joe Biden was, by far, the worst President in American History." He "took office (in) the most corrupt Election ever seen" and "oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our nation to the brink of destruction" - pot/kettle - with high inflation, weaponized law enforcement, Green New Scam, "abolishing" the Southern Border, insane asylums, "Afghanistan Disaster." His "devastating weakness" made Russia invade Ukraine and Hamas attack Israel. He issued "blanket pardons to Radical Democrat thugs" and "the Biden crime family." Sigh redux.
But "despite it all" - trumpets please - the manchild king triumphed in a landslide to "SAVE AMERICA!" Now he's "delivered" on his promise to "usher in the Golden Age of America," and "THE BEST IS YET TO COME!" Some beg to differ. They suggest his plaque should read, "Pedophile, Narcissist, Rapist, and Convicted Felon." They marvel, "Damn, his dick really is that tiny." They exclaim, "This is insane," "What the actual fuck," "God I hate this man," "This is embarrassing," and, "I am at my wit's end." In all, notes Canadian pundit Dean Blundell, "The United States of America is going through some things right now."
More came In Wednesday night's "prime time unraveling." His racist, dementetd, drug-addled, "nothingburger" of a meltdown, in which "basically nothing he is saying is true," was brutally summarized as, "Old man yells at country," "WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?", his "Pettysburg Address," "a 19-minute nervous breakdown," his "Norma Desmond imitation," "what presidential panic looks like," "Stop talking about Epstein," "lie harder and louder," "the Worst Wing," "Nazis On Drugs,'" "authoritarian fantasy at its finest" - colossal invasion! drug prices down 600% in magic math! the first peace in the Middle East in 3,000 years!", "This wasn't confidence. This was agitation." From MAGA: "Why is he yelling at us?" "He's talking so fast he sounds panicked," "the most pointless presidential address (in) American history." From Newsom: 100 "Me Me Me Me Me's." From us: For God's and our sanity's sake, once and for all, fucking quiet Piggy.
'Defeat for Justice': Ecuador to Pay Amazon-Polluting Chevron $220 Million
A US advocacy group, American human rights lawyer Steven Donziger, and the group in Ecuador behind a historic legal battle against Chevron over its dumping of toxic waste in the Amazon rainforest are condemning the Ecuadorian government's plans to pay the oil giant hundreds of millions of dollars due to an arbitration ruling.
In response to the legal fight in Ecuador that led to a $9.5 billion judgment against Chevron—which bought Texaco—the fossil fuel company turned to the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, suing the South American country in the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. As part of the latter case, Ecuadorian Attorney General Diana Salazar Méndez's office announced Monday that the government would pay the US company only around $220 million, rather than the over $3 billion Chevron sought.
While Chevron said in a statement that it was "pleased with the resolution of this matter" and claimed the decision "strengthened the rule of law globally," and Salazar Méndez's office celebrated the dramatically lower figure, and the Union of Peoples Affected by Chevron-Texaco (UDAPT)—the group that began the case against oil company in 1993—pushed back against the government's framing of the reduction "as if it was a success and an economic achievement."
"The reality is it is a defeat for justice," UDAPT argued in a Tuesday statement. "For 32 years, UDAPT has documented pollution, environmental crime, and lives broken by Chevron, proving what should be obvious: Communities have not recovered, health has not been restored, clean water has not returned, and the territories that sustain life remain contaminated. A debt is not owed to Chevron. A debt is owed to the Amazonian families still waiting for truth, justice, and full reparation."
Amazon Watch deputy director Paul Paz y Miño similarly said Tuesday that "this illegitimate arbitration process is nothing more than Chevron abusing the law to escape accountability for one of the worst oil disasters in history."
"Ecuador's courts ruled correctly and based largely on Chevron's own evidence, that Chevron deliberately poisoned Indigenous and rural communities, leaving behind a mass cancer zone in the Amazon," the campaigner continued. "Adding insult to injury, the idea that Ecuador's people should now pay a US oil company that admitted to deliberate pollution is the epitome of environmental racism."
Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa "must not honor this ISDS award, and the international community must stand behind the victims of Chevron's crimes and demand that the company clean up Ecuador once and for all," Paz y Miño added. "Amazon Watch stands with the affected Indigenous peoples and communities of the Ecuadorian Amazon. We urge President Noboa to reject this illegitimate award, disclose any negotiations with Chevron, and enforce Ecuadorian law by ensuring Chevron pays its debt to those it poisoned."
Donziger—who was detained in the United States for nearly 1,000 days after Chevron went after him in the American legal system for representing Big Oil's victims in Ecuador—was also sharply critical, saying Tuesday that "the decision by a so-called private corporate arbitration panel that claims to absolve Chevron of its massive pollution liability in Ecuador has no legitimacy and does not affect the historic $9.5 billion damages judgment won by Amazonian communities."
"That judgment still stands as the definitive public court ruling in the case," he said. "The private arbitral panel has no authority over the six public appellate courts, including the Supreme Courts of Ecuador and Canada, that issued unanimous decisions against Chevron and confirmed the extensive evidence that the company devastated local communities by deliberately dumping billions of gallons of cancer-causing oil waste into rivers and streams used by thousands of people for drinking, bathing, and fishing."
"I also strongly condemn President Daniel Noboa for his plans to betray his own people by agreeing to send $220 million from the public treasury to Chevron, a company that owes Ecuador billions under multiple court orders for poisoning vulnerable Indigenous peoples with toxic oil waste," Donziger added. "Noboa would effectively grant Chevron a taxpayer-funded bailout financed by the same citizens who remain victims of the company's pollution. This would be an outrageous dereliction of duty and a violation of his oath of office, warranting removal."
Surging Home Building Costs Caused by Trump Tariffs Could Result in 450,000 Fewer Homes by 2030
After campaigning last year on reducing the cost of living and as he attempts to claim progressive Democrats' push for affordability as his own, President Donald Trump's policies have been directly linked to making life more expensive for people across the US—and along with electricity, healthcare, and groceries, housing costs are set to rise, according to a new analysis out Tuesday, which examines the impact of Trump's tariffs.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that the impact on home construction materials by Trump's tariffs could force builders to scale back significantly over the next five years, reducing new home construction by 450,000 homes through 2030.
According to the analysis, the average cost of building a home in the coming years will increase by $17,500 if current home building rates continue.
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," said CAP.
Trump's tariffs are as high as 50% for some countries, and some of the highest levies have been imposed on key building materials, including lumber, copper, aluminum, and steel products. Imports of upholstered products and kitchen cabinets are set to face tariffs that could increase by up to 50%.
The tariffs were unveiled amid a growing housing affordability crisis, with the number of available homes falling short by 2 million units or more, according to some estimates.
Following the Great Recession, home construction has not returned to pre-2008 levels and the country requires "sustained, above-average construction rates to correct" the persistent underbuilding, according to CAP.
"Yet the Trump administration’s tariff policies are pushing home building in the opposite direction by raising construction costs, which will slow new construction activity, raise costs, and worsen housing affordability," reads the report by Cory Husak, Natalie Baker, and Mimla Wardak.
The analysis found that while Trump has insisted that the tariffs will target the countries that import goods to the US, but as with groceries—which have gone up in price by up to 40% at some stores—the levies on home building materials are projected to ultimately impact American families who are already struggling to afford healthcare and other essentials.
The tariffs are expected to add $27 billion to the annual cost of constructing new homes by 2027, effectively raising the cost of building a new home by about 3.3%.
🚨Hot off the presses 🚨 New tariffs are going to kill 450,000 homes over the next 5 yearsTariffs on lumber, steel, cabinets, vanities, copper add an average $17,500 to the cost of building a new home. Yearly home losses will soon total 100k per year-www.americanprogress.org/article/trum...
[image or embed]
— Corey Husak (@chusak.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM
From 2030 onward, the number of new homes being built is expected to be down by 100,000 yearly.
"This would be equivalent to eliminating 6 percent of the homes constructed in the five years from 2020 to 2024," said CAP.
If home building falls as CAP projects, the cost of construction will rise to $18,500 per home in 2028, CAP projected.
“Families are already struggling to afford a place to live, and the administration is adding fuel to the housing costs fire,” said Husak, director of tax policy at CAP. “These tariffs are a tax on builders and aspiring homeowners, raising construction costs, slowing the pace of new building, and pushing homeownership even further out of reach for millions of Americans.”
The group urged the federal government to act to stop the tariffs from continuously "driving up construction costs, slowing homebuilding, and worsening the nation’s already severe housing shortage."
"Building new housing supply is crucial to solving the housing shortage," said CAP, "and canceling tariffs on homebuilding materials is a necessary step to bring more housing online and improve housing affordability."
AOC Leads JD Vance For First Time in 2028 Election Matchup: Poll
As MAGA's popularity wanes, a new poll shows that progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is now slightly favored to win a hypothetical presidential election against Vice President JD Vance, a leading contender to be the heir apparent to President Donald Trump.
The survey of over 1,500 registered voters, published Tuesday by The Argument/Verasight, shows the Bronx congresswoman slightly edging out the vice president, 51% to 49%, within the margin of error.
While the 2028 presidential election is still nearly three years away, the poll suggests that Ocasio-Cortez, a self-described democratic socialist who some have dubbed too polarizing to represent the Democratic Party, may have more nationwide appeal than establishment politicians have claimed.
Neither Vance nor Ocasio-Cortez has formally declared their intent to run for the presidency. But as Trump's loyal vice president, Vance is considered by many to be his natural successor. However, the president has continued to vacillate on whether he’ll run for an unconstitutional third-term bid himself, and polls have consistently shown Vance to be even less popular than Trump.
Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, is one of the relatively few Democrats available to fill a wide-open progressive lane. While her credibility among some on the left was dinged substantially by her defenses of the unpopular former President Joe Biden last year, the core planks of her affordability-focused platform—especially Medicare for All—are more popular than ever in the age of Trumpian austerity. This is especially true among Democratic voters, who polls have shown increasingly view the party establishment as out of step with their priorities.
Following Trump's victory in 2024, which was propelled predominantly by fears about inflation under Biden, one of the most striking numbers was the 11% shift toward Trump in the Bronx from 2020.
But while Trump gained substantially, Ocasio-Cortez also cruised to her fourth term in Congress with about as much support as ever, leading many to marvel at the rise of the idiosyncratic “AOC-Trump” voter, who was evidently disillusioned with the economy under the Democratic incumbent but felt compelled by Ocasio-Cortez’s working-class background and “anti-establishment” status.
Tuesday’s poll shows that these sorts of voters are very capable of being won back by the right Democratic candidate: 8% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 said they’d vote for Ocasio-Cortez in a hypothetical showdown with Vance. And while Trump dominated in 2024 among those who did not vote in the previous election, the poll shows Ocasio-Cortez reversing the trend, with support from 52% of those who stayed home in 2024.
Adding to this, the congresswoman polled well with the voter demographics that Vice President Kamala Harris—another likely 2028 hopeful—struggled to mobilize.
Where Trump dominated with non-college-educated voters, 56% to 42%, Ocasio-Cortez is virtually tied with Vance. Among Hispanic voters, who went against the Democratic VP in historic numbers to give Trump nearly half of their support, Ocasio-Cortez is shown to lead by an overwhelming 64% to 36% margin.
And among voters aged 18-29, who favored Harris by just four points in 2024, Ocasio-Cortez comfortably leads Vance by 16.
Her support among young voters, one of the groups most disillusioned with the Democratic establishment, is especially striking. While Ocasio-Cortez lags somewhat behind Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom in early polls for the 2028 Democratic nomination across all age groups, a Yale youth poll released last week showed that she is by far the preferred candidate among voters ages 18-35.
Meanwhile, the issue that propelled Trump back to the White House—the economy—has become an albatross for the GOP, with a record-low 31% of all voters giving him positive marks, according to an Associated Press/NORC poll last week.
Axios reported in September that Ocasio-Cortez was still weighing her options for what path to pursue in 2028, seeking to heighten her national profile in advance of either a presidential run or a primary challenge to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who Democratic voters have increasingly scorned for what they perceive as routine capitulations to Trump.
Since Trump’s return to office, she has only continued to lean into her status as a progressive leader, joining Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on a nationwide campaign to “Fight Oligarchy,” which has drawn massive crowds in both red and blue states. Meanwhile, the unexpected rise of fellow democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York’s next mayor has provided proof of concept that a working-class-focused, anti-corporate agenda can win elections.
"She has a very real shot in 2028," said CNN pollster Harry Enten back in September. "There's been a tectonic shift among Democratic voters since Bernie Sanders first ran. AOC's in a far better polling position than Sanders was before his first run, and the Democratic Party is also sick of its leadership."
EU Advances Deregulation Package Eroding 'Vital Climate and Human Rights Safeguards'
Climate and human rights advocates on Tuesday blasted European Union legislators for approving a deregulation package that Amnesty International's Eve Geddie said "undermines vital climate and human rights safeguards, betraying people and the planet at a time when protections are needed most."
Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted 428-218 in favor of Omnibus I, which will weaken the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, with 17 abstentions. The package still needs final approval from the Council of the EU, after which governments will have until mid-2028 to transpose it into national law.
Under the new text, only EU companies that employ more than 1,000 people on average and have a net annual turnover above €450 million, or $529 million, will have to conduct social and environmental reporting, and only firms with over 5,000 employees and a net annual turnover exceeding €1.5 billion, or $1.76 billion, have to carry out due diligence.
The changes, finalized in negotiations between the European Parliament and member states last week, "are expected to exempt around 80% of companies originally expected to disclose against the rules," reported Responsible Investor.
Anticipating the vote, Sebastien Godinot, senior economist at WWF European Policy Office, said Monday that "under the guise of easing regulatory burdens, the EU engaged in a race to the bottom, rushing to undo necessary safeguards that were set in place to protect our nature and climate, as well as to secure future economic prosperity."
"Instead of focusing on the successful implementation of the laws, decision-makers shifted their focus to short-term political gains, ignoring the strong evidence showing that corporate climate targets are not only feasible, but make a lot of sense for companies," he continued. "After years of positioning itself as a sustainability leader, it is disappointing to see the EU stepping back and ignoring the science meant to guide decision-making."
Mariana Ferreira, who focuses on sustainable finance at the WWF office, noted that "this outcome reflects a troubling trend in the European Parliament, where the conservative bloc has increasingly aligned with far-right agendas, legitimizing polarizing demands and pushing aside science-based evidence and warnings."
After Tuesday's vote, Human Rights Watch senior corporate accountability advocate Hélène de Rengervé lamented: "All that is left of the EU's trailblazing corporate accountability law is a skeleton... The final text means corporate interests are being prioritized over the rights of workers, communities, and environmental protection."
Gaëlle Dusepulchre of the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights also argued that the vote "sets a serious precedent for EU policymaking by signaling a clear prioritization of corporate interests over the protection of people and the planet."
Geddie, director of Amnesty's European Institutions Office, pointed out that "this rollback is part of a bonfire of regulations and is the result of intense lobbying efforts by powerful industry actors and external pressure, including from the United States. Ignoring widespread criticism from civil society, economists, the [United Nations], and even the European Ombudsman, this rushed and opaque process also flies in the face of public opinion, which clearly shows the majority of Europeans favour human rights and environmental protection."
"Now, EU governments must strengthen key provisions when they incorporate these regulations in national law and use every available avenue to improve protections, ensure access to justice for victims, and urgently prevent further erosion of corporate accountability—especially since other deregulation packages are already in the pipeline," she stressed. "European states must not squander the opportunity to use these regulations to ensure businesses contribute to thriving communities—our future and the future of our planet rely on it."
European Coalition for Corporate Justice director Nele Meyer called the vote "a betrayal of people and communities suffering from corporate abuse around the world," and warned that it "puts member states at risk of breaching their obligation to protect human rights and prevent environmental and climate damage."
"It is deeply alarming to witness how foreign pressure shaped a file that should have been driven by evidence and by the needs of those facing the impacts on the ground," Meyer added. "While the protections have been weakened, the core due diligence duty remains. Now the law must be implemented in a way that delivers real protection for people and the planet."
Majority of Democrats Join Senate GOP to Pass Trump's $900 Billion Pentagon Wish List
A majority of Democratic senators joined Republicans on Wednesday to pass the largest military spending bill in US history, handing President Donald Trump the bulk of his demands, even as he enacts steep cuts across nearly every other sector of the federal budget.
The more than $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by a vote of 77-20, with 27 Democrats, as well as the independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), in support. Just three members of the Republican majority voted against the bill, along with 16 Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).
Among many other items on Trump's wish list, the bill provides funds for weapons meant to counter China, full funding for Trump's National Guard deployments to support the US immigration agents, and more funds for what are described as "counternarcotics operations."
It also removes a measure that would have restored collective bargaining rights that Trump stripped earlier this year from Pentagon employees, permanently ends Defense Department initiatives to curb climate change, and excludes a measure that would mandate healthcare coverage for in vitro fertilization.
Combined with $156 billion in the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act this July, the package passed by the Senate pushes military spending for fiscal year 2026 into the trillions—a new record in absolute terms and a relative level unseen since World War II.
The bill will head to Trump's desk just a day after he announced a “total and complete blockade" on Venezuelan oil tankers, a major escalation described by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) as "unquestionably an act of war."
The bill contains a measure demanding that the Pentagon release the unedited video of a September 2 "double-tap" strike on a boat in the Caribbean that members of both parties have suggested may violate international law.
On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio declined another congressional request to release the video. The defense bill ramps up the pressure for transparency, mandating a 25% cut to Hegseth's travel budget if the administration does not comply.
Senate Democrats have previously voted in support of war powers resolutions to require congressional approval for Trump's boat strikes and for further military action against Venezuela. These measures have repeatedly fallen just short in the Republican-controlled Senate.
But Stephen Semmler, a co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute, argued that "if the Senate truly cared about Trump seeking congressional approval before starting a war with Venezuela, it wouldn't have passed a bill authorizing $901 billion in military spending."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who voted no on the defense spending bill, said, "I cannot support a bill that increases military spending by tens of billions of dollars and fails to include guardrails against Donald Trump and Hegseth’s authoritarian abuses."
“Donald Trump has repeatedly used the military to occupy major US cities, including Portland—endangering our service members, disrupting our economy, and eroding trust in our communities," Wyden continued. “He has also shown that he will use the Department of Defense to conduct deadly military operations without congressional authorization to intimidate political opponents and immigrants through the military, to purge senior military leaders without cause, to funnel billions of dollars in contracts to his personal supporters, and to waste billions of taxpayer dollars."
The defense spending bill passed the US House last week, with support from 115 Democrats. This was despite opposition from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose deputy chair, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), said it was "enabling unchecked executive war powers."
The House is expected to vote Wednesday evening on a pair of war powers resolutions. One, introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), would block Trump's extrajudicial airstrikes on boats in the Caribbean. Another bipartisan resolution would require Trump to receive congressional approval before taking direct military action, including land strikes, against Venezuela.
'Gross': Critics Recoil After Trump-Appointed Board Adds His Name to Kennedy Center
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," said journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday drew an outraged reaction after she announced that members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board, who were appointed by President Donald Trump, had voted to add his name to the building.
In a post on X, Leavitt announced that the building would henceforth be known as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," despite the fact that the building was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center... have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center," Leavitt wrote on X, "because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
Despite Leavitt's claim, it does not appear that the vote in favor of renaming the building was unanimous. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex-officio Kennedy Center board member, said after the vote that she had been muted during a call where other board members had voted to add Trump's name to the building, and was thus "not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move."
Journalist Terry Moran noted that the Kennedy Center board does not have the power to rename the building without prior approval of US Congress.
"Congress establishes these institutions through law, and only a new law can rename them," Moran wrote, and then commented, "also—gross."
Members of the Kennedy family also expressed anger at the move to rename the center.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that "the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law," and "can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says."
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, could barely express her anger at the decision.
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," she wrote. "At times such as that, it’s better to be quiet. For how long, I can’t say."
Shortly afterward, Shriver wrote another post in which she attacked Trump for being "downright weird" with his obsession with having things named after himself.
"It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy," she said. "It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on."
'Cruel and Unconstitutional': Trump, RFK Jr. Escalate War on Trans Youth With Threat Against US Hospitals
"These proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families," said one critic.
President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday unveiled new policies aimed at cutting transgender minors off from gender-affirming care.
As reported by the New York Times, Kennedy announced new proposed rules that would bar Medicare and Medicaid from sending any funds to hospitals that carry out gender-affirming care on transgender minors, a move that would essentially force these facilities to shut down given that spending from those two programs account for nearly half of all spending on hospital care.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, warned during a news conference announcing the proposed rules that hospitals are "going to pay a very steep price" if they continue providing gender-affirming care to minors.
Many hospitals throughout the US are already under financial strain while bracing for the impact of the Medicaid cuts in this year's Republican-passed budget law, which are projected to total $1 trillion over the next decade.
Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), slammed Trump administration health officials for their "unprecedented actions and harmful rhetoric" while announcing the new proposed rules, which she described as a vast overreach by the federal government.
"These rules are a baseless intrusion into the patient-physician relationship," said Kressly. "Patients, their families, and their physician—not politicians or government officials—should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them. The government’s actions today make that task harder, if not impossible, for families of gender-diverse and transgender youth."
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, hammered the Trump administration for being "relentless in denying healthcare to this country, and especially the transgender community."
"Families deserve the freedom to go to the doctor and get the care that they need and to have agency over the health and well-being of their children," Robinson added. "But these proposed actions would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping healthcare decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe."
The ACLU wasted no time in announcing that it would sue the administration if it goes forward with enacting the proposed rules, which it described as an unconstitutional attack on healthcare practices that have been endorsed by both the the American Medical Association and the AAP.
Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Rights Project, accused the administration of launching "cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families."
"By attempting to strip away essential healthcare, the administration is not 'protecting' anyone," Strangio added. "It is weaponizing the federal government to target a vulnerable population for political gain. Healthcare decisions belong to families and their doctors, not politicians. The latest proposals from the administration would force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding."
China Rips US ‘Warmongers’ as Trump Admin Proposes $11 Billion Taiwan Arms Sale
China's foreign minister warned that US weapons sales to Taipei "will only accelerate the push towards a perilous state of military confrontation across the Taiwan Strait."
The Chinese government on Thursday condemned the Trump administration's announcement of a proposed $11 billion weapons package for Taiwan, a move that Beijing said violates both the "One China" principle and an agreement in which the US pledged to reduce arms sales to Taipei.
The US State Department said the record $11.154 billion package contains a broad range of weaponry and other military equipment, including Lockheed Martin High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), Lockheed Martin Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) long-range missiles, BAE Systems M109A7 self-propelled howitzers, drones and tactical software, Javelin and TOW missiles, and M2A1 machine guns and other armaments.
"This proposed sale serves US national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient’s continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability," the State Department said in a statement. "The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region."
Taiwanese leaders thanked the US for its continued efforts to help the island defend itself.
However, Chen Binhua, spokesperson for China's Taiwan Affairs Office, blasted the proposed sale as “flagrant interference in China’s internal affairs" that "severely undermines China’s sovereignty and security interests and sends erroneous signals to separatist forces."
Chen said that the arms package "gravely violates" the "One China" principle, which, to the US means that the People's Republic of China (PRC) is “the sole legal government of China," but to Beijing means that Taiwan—which it views as a breakaway province—is an inseparable part of the Chinese nation.
While the US acknowledges the PRC's position that there is but one China, Washington does not recognize or accept Beijing's stance. Although it has no formal diplomatic relations with Taipei, the US is obliged under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to "provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character."
China says this directly contradicts US obligations under the so-called "Three Communiques" with Beijing—especially an August 17, 1982 agreement under which Washington pledged that it would respect PRC sovereignty and that it "intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan."
China has accused the US of violating the August 17 communique with each of its many arms sales to Taiwan.
"We urge the United States to immediately cease its policy of arming Taiwan and to stop condoning and supporting separatist forces advocating Taiwan independence," Chen said Thursday. "We urge the United States to exercise the utmost caution in handling the Taiwan issue.”
Chen added that US "warmongers" and Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party—which he accused of “stubbornly pursuing independence”—risk turning the island into a "powder keg" and the Taiwanese people into "cannon fodder."
Under pressure from the Trump administration to buy more US arms, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te last month announced a special $40 billion budget for the purchase of weapons between 2026 and 2033.
The latest proposed US arms sale follows Congress' passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes up to $1 billion in funding for Taiwan's defense. US President Donald Trump is expected to imminently sign the record $900.6 billion bill into law.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said Thursday that the US effort to contain China by arming Taiwan is "doomed to fail."
"It will only accelerate the push towards a perilous state of military confrontation across the Taiwan Strait,” he added.