January, 31 2018, 02:30pm EDT
Green Party Rebuttal to President Trump's 2018 State of the Union Address
Green Party leaders responded to President Trump's 2018 State of the Union address on Tuesday, Jan. 30, with sharp criticism of his statements on energy in light of the climate crisis, plans for more nuclear weapons, health care, immigration, and other administration policies.
WASHINGTON
Green Party leaders responded to President Trump's 2018 State of the Union address on Tuesday, Jan. 30, with sharp criticism of his statements on energy in light of the climate crisis, plans for more nuclear weapons, health care, immigration, and other administration policies.
Green rebuttals to Mr. Trump's speech and to reactions from both Democratic and Republican parties can be read below. The rebuttals advocate alternative ideas like the Green New Deal, Single-Payer health care, and global nuclear disarmament.
The Green Party aired a simulcast of the president's speech on GreenStream, the party's livestream channel, with post-speech comments and Q&A by Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, the 2016 Green presidential and vice-presidential candidates respectively. Craig Seeman (Green Party of New York) was technical producer for the broadcast. The comments and Q&A can be viewed here.
Video responses by Green Party leaders and candidates to the State of the Union are posted on here. Greens also live-tweeted on the party's Twitter page during the speech.
Green Party rebuttals to President Trump's State of the Union:
ExxonMobil's $50 billion investment in the U.S., praised by Mr. Trump in his speech, comes at a time when drastic measures are needed to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and the power of oil companies.
In November 2017, more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries warned that humanity is facing "widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss... Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory." The scientists sounded an alarm on greenhouse gas emissions, temperature change, ocean dead zones, and depleted freshwater resources, vertebrate species, and total forest cover.
During the State of the Union, the president boasted of expanded fossil fuel use (especially "clean coal" -- which doesn't exist) and reduced corporate regulation, in line with the reckless and anti-scientific skepticism of the Republican Party despite recent predictions of more extreme effects.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party acknowledges the threat of climate change but has refused to endorse steps necessary against the crisis. President Obama blocked international agreements to reduce CO2 emissions from being legally binding and the 2016 Democratic platform rejected carbon taxes and excluded limits on drilling and fracking.
Greens have proposed a way to avert a global climate catastrophe, convert to a 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030, ensure financial stability, address human needs, and provide millions of new jobs in clean, renewable energy technology, retrofitting homes and buildings for energy efficiency, expanded mass transportation for a sharp reduction in care traffic, and other measures.
This plan is called the Green New Deal.
Global warming went unmentioned in Mr. Trump's speech and in Rep. Joe Kennedy's response on behalf of Democrats. The Green Party remains the only political party that takes the crisis seriously.
Health care
President Trump promised to reduce the price of prescription drugs, but GOP reforms will only worsen the Affordable Care Act's defects. Both major parties remain loyal to generous for-profit insurance, pharmaceutical, and other health lobbies.
The Green Party calls for Single-Payer national health care (Improved Medicare For All), the only solution that will make medical care universal, drastically reduce costs, and save Americans from financial ruin over a medical emergency. Greens call for health care to be recognized as a human right, not a commodity.
Military spending, nuclear arms, and foreign policy
President Trump's call for more nuclear weaponry is further evidence of his loyalty to Pentagon generals and dedication to military imperialism, the permanent wartime economy, and grossly bloated U.S. military budgets -- nearly $700 billion in the proposed Fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which has bipartisan support.
The Green Party calls deep cuts in military funding (except for veterans's services) with redirection of such to money to human needs; global nuclear disarmament; closing of Guantanamo Bay and U.S. bases around the world; diplomacy and adherence to international law to resolve international conflict; a halt to U.S. aid for countries that violate human rights, including Israel for its brutal apartheid system and Saudi Arabia in its continuing assault on Yemen; and an end to Mr. Trump's insults and reckless threats aimed at North Korea, Iran, and other nations.
Greens see a glimmer of hope in current negotiations between North and South Korea undertaken independently of the Trump Administration.
Greens are equally concerned over Democrats' revival of the Cold War, with McCarthyite allegations against those who engage in political dissent (some directed at Jill Stein and the Green Party) and an embrace of neocon foreign policies. This mentality has resulted in tacit approval among many liberals for corporate censorship of ideas on the Internet.
The Green Party calls for a new peace movement that recognizes the belligerence of both the Democratic and Republican parties. See also commentary by Ajamu Baraka, 2016 Green vice-presidential nominee and founder of Black Alliance for Peace.
Immigration
Greens called President Trump's focus on gang violence committed by a small number of immigrants a slanderous and racist attempt to stoke fear and hatred. In reality, undocumented immigrants are statistically more law-abiding than the general U.S. population.
Republican enthusiasm for criminalizing and deporting immigrants -- bolstered by Democratic compromises during the recent government shutdown -- have been used to justify the president's repeal of DACA and barring of refugees seeking asylum, many fleeing countries like Honduras where bipartisan U.S. support for brutally repressive governments led them to seek shelter in the U.S.
The Green Party calls for human rights for immigrants, an end to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and deportations of immigrants, preservation of DACA, and a welcome to those fleeing violence and poverty.
Post-hurricane aid for Puerto Rico and other damaged areas
In the wake of hurricanes that have inflicted devastation on Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Texas, and other areas, the Trump Administration has been slow to provide funds, fresh water, medicine, food, shelter, electrical power, and other kinds of relief. President Trump was silent about Puerto Rico during his State of the Union address.
On Monday, it was announced that FEMA would stop sending food and water to Puerto Rico. According to reports from Puerto Rico, many people still depend on FEMA rations.The Green Party calls this decision premature.
The Green Party continues to support independence, self-determination, and self-government for Puerto Rico and cancellation of the island's massive debt. Greens noted that the storms are evidence of increasing climate stability as average global temperatues continue to rise.
Real Resistance
Greens said that those who reduce The Resistance to "Restore Democrats to Power" are offering no resistance at all.
The Democratic Party, competing with the GOP for checks from the One Percent, has abandoned working people across the U.S. Both parties pretend that economic recoveries and prosperity for the corporate sector and the rich mean good news for everyone. In reality, wages have stagnated. Financial security and protections for working people continue to shrink.
Placing corporate-money Democrats back in public office will be an invitation for future GOP victories, with the possibility of Republicans even worse than Trump.
Real resistance means changing the dangerous direction of the U.S., which can only begin to happen by opening the political field to more than the Two Parties of War and Wall Street.
Donald Trump won the 2016 election because voters who didn't want Hillary Clinton prevailed over voters who didn't want Mr. Trump. In other words -- more than any other reason -- we got President Trump because of the two-party election dynamic.
The Green Party has an alternative vision for the future of America, for working people, and for Planet Earth. That vision can become a reality when millions of Americans declare their independence from the two neoliberal parties and business as usual.
See also:
Green Party marks Dr. King's birthday, 50th anniversary of Poor People's Campaign
Press release: Green Party of the United States, January 15, 2018
Video: Statement on Dr. King's birthday by Deanna Dee Taylor
Green Party Women's Caucus urges passage of HR bill upholding human rights for children
Press release: Green Party of the United States, January 3, 2018
Green Party: Democrats and Republicans have launched an evidence-free McCarthyite campaign to discredit Jill Stein and Greens
Press release: Green Party of the United States, December 20, 2017
Green Party leaders speak out against the Republican tax bill
Press release: Green Party of the United States, December 13, 2017
MORE INFORMATION
Green Party of the United States https://www.gp.org
202-319-7191
@GreenPartyUS
Green candidate database and campaign information
News Center
Ballot Access
Videos
Green Papers
Google+
Twitter
Livestream
YouTube
GreenStream
Facebook
Green merchandise
Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States
The Green Party of the United States is a grassroots national party. We're the party for "We The People," the health of our planet, and future generations instead of the One Percent.
(202) 319-7191LATEST NEWS
'Not Even Trying to Hide Their Brazen Corruption': Trump Sons Set to Profit From Tungsten Mining Deal
"This is the most corrupt administration in American history," said one House Democrat. "It is not close."
Jun 30, 2026
A bombshell New York Times report detailing how President Donald Trump's eldest sons stand to profit from a tungsten mining deal negotiated by their billionaire father sparked outraged calls for accountability on Monday, with Democratic lawmakers characterizing the taxpayer-funded project as yet another example of the administration's unchecked and unprecedented corruption.
"You will not believe it until you see it laid out," US Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote in response to the Times story published over the weekend. According to the newspaper, Trump and his team—including billionaire Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick—"won an agreement from the Kazakh leader to give a little-known American company access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten, a metal that the United States desperately needs for the production of missile warheads, fighter jets, computer chips, and other critical goods."
Ahead of the deal's completion last September, according to the Times, the Trump administration "approved preliminary applications for as much as $1.6 billion in federal financing for the American company, now called Kaz Resources, which plans to break ground on the project in rural Kazakhstan."
Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., along with Lutnick's sons Brandon and Kyle, are poised to benefit from the project. "Within weeks of the St. Regis negotiations, investors with a firm called Dominari Securities, which is housed at Trump Tower in New York and partly owned by the president’s two eldest sons... joined with other partners to take a 20% stake in a corporate entity related to the Kazakhstan project," the Times reported.
"We’ve seen 300,000 Georgians lose health coverage in the last six months because they couldn’t find room in the budget for health insurance. But they’ve got room in the budget for a tungsten mine overseas, controlled in part by Prince Don and Prince Eric," Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) said in an MS NOW appearance late Monday.
Ossoff: You’ve got the American government, controlled by Donald Trump, backing a Trump family tungsten mine in Kazakhstan with more than a billion dollars in federal commitments at the very same time that they are cutting health care, defunding hospitals and nursing homes, and… pic.twitter.com/LCZbJgLyUX
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 30, 2026
Lutnick's sons, meanwhile, "helped one of the lead investors... on the Kazakh deal raise $210 million in new capital for a related entity," potentially resulting in a multimillion-dollar boon for Cantor Fitzgerald, the investment firm overseen by Brandon and Kyle Lutnick.
"They're not even trying to hide their brazen corruption anymore," wrote US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "President Trump and Secretary Lutnick used your tax dollars to further enrich their families from a major mining deal with Kazakhstan."
Beyer stressed that "this isn't an isolated incident." The Times found that at least "14 companies working on critical mining deals with the US government that have ties to Cantor Fitzgerald or the Trump family," including Kaz Resources, Perpetua Resources, and USA Rare Earth.
Trump's family has profited massively from his return to the White House, thanks in a large part to a crypto scheme spearheaded by the president's eldest sons. A "Trump Family Digital Grift Wealth Tracker" maintained by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee estimates that crypto projects have netted the president and his family over $2.4 billion in profits so far.
"This is the most corrupt administration in American history. It is not close," Levin said Monday, accusing Trump's Republican allies—including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—of enabling the president as he loots federal coffers to further enrich himself and his family.
"We must keep digging, and keep asking the questions they do not want asked," Levin added. "Republicans in Congress are unwilling to lift a finger. Mike Johnson is running a protection racket."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Smotrich Condemned for Plan to 'Illegally Seize' Gaza After Calling for Israel to ‘Complete the Conquest’ and Build Settlements
Palestinian resistance groups called it a "dangerous criminal escalation" and a "fully-fledged war crime."
Jun 30, 2026
Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "complete the conquest" of Gaza on Monday and send Israeli settlers to colonize the territory.
"We are prepared to establish three settlements in the northern perimeter immediately, the moment we receive the green light from the prime minister and the minister of defense," Smotrich said in a video filmed from the city of Sderot, which sits less than a mile from the wall separating the Gaza Strip from Israel.
Smotrich claimed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) currently "[hold] nearly 70% of the Gaza Strip."
“We must complete the conquest of the remaining 30%,” he said, adding that they need to “defeat Hamas and above all we need to establish a belt of Jewish settlements within the territory of the Strip as a protective border for Sderot and all the communities of the Gaza envelope.”
Smotrich, who has overseen the rapid, violent acceleration of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank—considered illegal under international law—has been quite blatant about his desire to expand settlements into Gaza as well, reversing Israel’s withdrawal of settlers from the territory in 2005.
At a settlements conference last year, he said that “Gaza will be totally destroyed" and that its residents would be "concentrated" in a narrow southern strip while the rest of the territory "will be empty." He celebrated that Gazans would become “totally despairing” and seek “relocation” elsewhere, allowing Jewish Israelis to move in.
As the movement of settlers into the West Bank has ramped up, along with the destruction of Palestinian homes, Smotrich has said that the use of settlements to carve up the West Bank was "killing the idea of the Palestinian state."
Netanyahu has never said explicitly that he wants to resettle Gaza, but he did say last month, during a speech at an illegal West Bank settlement, that he'd ordered the military to seize 70% of Gaza in violation of the boundaries drawn up under last year's ceasefire agreement, which put Israel in temporary control of about 53% of the territory.
The peace plan laid out by US President Donald Trump, backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, which underpins the ceasefire signed in October, states explicitly that "Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza."
The Resistance Committees in Palestine, a collection of armed groups in Gaza working closely with Hamas, described Smotrich's call to build settlements in the strip a "dangerous criminal escalation" and a "fully-fledged war crime" in a statement on Tuesday.
They described it as "a scheme to settle the conflict and impose a fait accompli in the context of the genocidal war" and a "dangerous development aimed at sabotaging the efforts of mediators and guarantors to solidify the ceasefire agreement and liquidate the Palestinian cause and presence in Gaza."
Assal Rad, a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington DC, emphasized that Smotrich was hardly a fringe figure.
"This isn’t a random person," she said. "He’s a high-ranking Israeli official declaring the intent to illegally seize Gaza."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Privacy Advocates Raise Alarm Over Online Age Verification Provisions as House Passes KIDS Act
"Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists’ confidential sources," warned two press freedom advocates.
Jun 30, 2026
Opponents of a bill that is purported to protect children online said Monday night, after the legislation passed in the US House, that laws are "urgently" needed to stop Big Tech companies from preying on kids' vulnerabilities.
"The KIDS Act is not that piece of legislation," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who was one of 117 lawmakers who voted against the Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act, which passed with 267 votes, while 47 members of Congress did not vote.
The bipartisan bill requires online platforms to use new safety features and parental controls, restricts the use of minors' personal data to target ads, and establishes new restrictions for AI chatbots and online games.
But ahead of the bill's passage, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was among the opponents raising alarm about other provisions "buried inside the KIDS Act" that would "push online services to verify all users’ ages, require government-directed moderation policies for online speech, and even create new rules about private and encrypted communications."
The legislation, drawing from portions of 14 different online safety bills, "is a mess, with different age-gating schemes for different services, using different standards," wrote EFF senior policy analyst Joe Mullin. "It’s a lot of complexity, and a lot of legal risk. Faced with that, many companies will conclude that the safest option is restrictive age-checking practices across their entire platforms."
As Mullin explained:
Throughout the KOSA section of the legislation, special protections, controls, messaging settings, and parental tools are required whenever a website or app “knows or should have known” a user is a child (defined in the bill as anyone under 13) or a teen (defined as anyone between 13 and 16 years old).
The problem is a website operator doesn’t need actual knowledge that a user is a minor to get in legal trouble. It applies when a platform “knows or should have known” a user’s age—a low, negligence-style standard of knowledge. If an online service gets it wrong, it’s going to be up to courts and regulators to decide, after the fact, if an online service “should” have known a user was 16.
To try to avoid liability, services will have to determine which users are teenagers and which are not. Most won’t be able to simply trust their users. They’ll have to collect more information about age, before any lawsuit or government action arises. Some companies may respond by requesting driver's licenses or passports. Others will rely on age-estimation systems that attempt to guess users' ages by looking at existing activity or doing facial scans.
At The Intercept, Caitlin Vogus of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and Aliya Bhatia of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project warned ahead of the bill's passage that while the legislation is ostensibly meant to protect children, the age verification requirement could impact all users' ability to access social media platforms without revealing their identities—chilling anonymous speech and threatening would-be whistleblowers.
"Threats to online anonymity harm everyone, but one group is often overlooked: journalists and the sources who talk to them," wrote Vogus and Bhatia. "Age verification requirements will help the Trump administration carry out its vendetta against the press by creating new avenues to identify journalists’ confidential sources."
While the KIDS Act says it won't require online platforms to collect government IDs for age verification, they said, "at least some platforms will likely choose this route to comply with the law or offer it as a fallback approach when other methods inevitably fail."
Former Republican congressman Justin Amash, a libertarian, accused the lawmakers who voted "yes" on the legislation of betraying "the Constitution and the American people."
Other opponents of the legislation, including Jayapal, argued that the bill would allow tech companies to continue targeting children with algorithms that send harmful content to the youngest users.
The legislation omits a "duty of care" provision that was included in the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which was passed by the US Senate in 2024—a requirement that tech firms "exercise reasonable care” to prevent harms to children.
Jayapal noted that the bill, which faces an uphill battle in the Senate, leaves "suicide, depression, addiction, substance use disorders, and eating disorders from the list of harms" that tech companies like Meta must address in their algorithms.
The "duty of care" provision has been criticized as too vague by several digital rights groups, while some child safety groups said its omission in the KIDS Act would "let Big Tech off the hook."
"We have seen time and again that these corporations cannot be trusted to put children's safety over their own profit margins," said Jayapal. "We cannot keep exposing our kids to platforms that are either completely indifferent to their safety or a direct threat to it."
The KIDS Act, Jayapal said, also includes provisions "that do not do enough to actually address the harms of" artificial intelligence.
"I voted no," said Jayapal, "because we have a real opportunity to pass bipartisan legislation that holds these companies to not just be transparent about the harms and mitigate them, but to actually prevent them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular