Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 3 weeks ago

   
   President Trump is back in the White House as our 47th President, and let me just say: he’s not wasting a single second. From the moment he took the oath again, he’s been fighting to restore American strength, pride, and sanity. This second term isn’t about revenge; it’s about results. And we’re seeing them, fast.
   
   He bombed Iran’s nuclear sites and sent a clear message that America will not sit back while enemies arm themselves. He’s working every angle to keep Americans safe—designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations, tightening border security, and using the full force of the federal government to deport criminal illegal migrants. And guess what? Border crossings are at their lowest levels in years. After years of chaos, the border is finally being taken seriously again.
   
   Meanwhile, Trump is rebuilding the economy from the ground up. We’re starting to see real momentum—business confidence is returning, and trillions in new investment are coming back into the U.S. because companies finally trust we have a leader who values American labor and production. He’s pushing for fair trade, not just free trade, and renegotiating deals that actually put America first for once.
   
   His leadership on the world stage has been just as strong. Under his pressure, NATO allies have agreed to raise their defense contributions to 5%, a massive win for U.S. taxpayers who have footed the bill for far too long. That kind of deal-making comes from strength, not appeasement.
   
   Here at home, Trump is pushing hard for his “Big, Beautiful Bill”, a major package aimed at cutting taxes and reining in reckless spending. It’s exactly what we need after years of government bloat and inflation. On top of that, the Supreme Court has handed him win after win, clearing legal roadblocks that Democrats used to block his first-term agenda. Now he’s moving full steam ahead.
   
   This isn’t just talk, it’s action. From fighting inflation and restoring energy dominance, to defending our borders and demanding accountability from our allies and enemies alike, Trump’s second term is about reclaiming the America we once knew, bold, proud, and free.
   
   If you care about results, not media spin, this is your moment. I’m standing with Trump and his Big, Beautiful, Bold Agenda. I invite others to join in and do the same. You don’t have to agree on everything, but at the very least, respect what he’s getting done, and respect the millions of Americans who see a better future through his leadership.
   
   Lastly, please keep all comments respectful and focused on the subject of this thread: President Trump’s accomplishments. This is not a place for bashing or negativity. Let’s keep the discussion constructive and on point.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      This is an analysis of Trump’s so call new agenda, and it is not going to positive from the view of many. So, if negativity is warranted it will be presented. That is my obligation and my duty.
      
      From my standpoint, he is making things more difficult than they were before. So we all have a right to our opinion and to express them freely. No one says that you have to like them…

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         "This is an analysis of Trump’s so call new agenda, and it is not going to positive from the view of many. So, if negativity is warranted it will be presented. That is my obligation and my duty.
         
         From my standpoint, he is making things more difficult than they were before. So we all have a right to our opinion and to express them freely. No one says that you have to like them… Cred"
         
         To respond politely to your comment: it's completely understandable that some may not support what Trump has accomplished so far or what he is currently working on. I’ve shared factual points, which I believe leave little room for dispute. Of course, I added a personal opinion here and there, but this thread was specifically created as a space to highlight the positive aspects of his presidency for those who are interested in doing so.
         
         If someone has nothing positive to add about Trump’s agenda or performance, it seems reasonable to simply refrain from commenting. What I find puzzling is why it would bother anyone that a thread exists purely to promote positivity and provide a space for like-minded discussion.
         
         I would appreciate it if you could respect the rules that HubPages has asked all of us to follow. There are plenty of threads available where you can share your negative views about Trump and his agenda.
         
         Your comment openly shares that you don’t feel you need to follow the guidelines HP has put in place. I’m not sure why you believe you’re entitled to that exception. I’ve been banned multiple times in the past for not following the rules, and I would assume the same expectations apply to you as well. We’re all expected to abide by the forum’s standards.
         
         Why not create a separate thread for those who want to share negative opinions about Trump? I’ve taken the time to start a thread that focuses on positivity. I intend to keep my thread on subject. I had to abandon a similar thread before because it was constantly derailed.
         
         Here is the link to the forum’s rules. I hope everyone can respect my right to create this thread and simply follow rule number one. Thanks!
         https://hubpages.com/help/forum_rules

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            That is wrong, the topic is
            
            Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
            
            I have every right to say otherwise. Is this some sort of Trump move to silence opposition? My opinion is on topic, but not happy face. What right have you to control a narrative of a diverse opinion on the topic you created. So, you say that only people that support Trump have a right to an opinion, where do you get power from? I don’t give that power to myself, I am certainly not giving it to anyone else. You are not compelled to ready my comments or comment on them, but others may.
            
            Trumpism is creeping in from all directions.
            
            For, Pete’s sake this is not a kindergarten class….

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

               "That is wrong, the topic is
               
               Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
               
               I have every right to say otherwise. Is this some sort of Trump move to silence opposition? My opinion is on topic, but not happy face. What right have you to control a narrative of a diverse opinion on the topic you created. So, you say that only people that support Trump have a right to an opinion, where do you get power from?
               
               For, Pete’s sake this is not a kindergarten class…." Cred
               https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/368 … ost4374325
               
               I respectfully disagree with your take. The thread's title, “Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America,” clearly sets a tone of support and positivity. The purpose of this thread is to create a space for those who want to discuss and celebrate that agenda, not to rehash opposition or turn it into another debate thread. There are plenty of spaces across the forum where criticism is welcomed and encouraged.
               
               This isn’t about silencing anyone; it’s about respecting the original intent of a topic. Just as you're free to start a thread focused on your concerns about Trump, I should be free to start one focused on his accomplishments, without it being derailed.
               
               No one here is claiming special power, only asking for basic respect of boundaries set by the thread creator and the forum rules. Dismissing that as “kindergarten” only sidesteps the actual issue: staying on topic and allowing diverse threads to serve their purpose. Diversity of opinion is welcome in the appropriate spaces. 
               
               I’ve been clear about the purpose of this thread and have even provided a link to the site’s rules. I’m not sure why you feel those guidelines don’t apply to you. You’ve mentioned “rights” repeatedly, but it’s important to remember that others have rights as well, including the right to create a thread with a specific focus. I simply hoped to create a positive space that would attract like-minded conversation. It’s like starting a gardening group to share tips and success stories; it's not the place for someone to come in and argue that gardening is a waste of time. There are plenty of other spaces for that kind of debate. This thread was meant to be encouraging and focused.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What you propose is a form of censorship, I will fight this and ask other forums participants what their opinion of all of this is?
                  
                  In your talk about ‘free speech”, I am surprise that you would put forth such a thing.
                  
                  Diversity of opinion is respected as a given in any forum.
                  
                  I simply don’t believe that you have the right to define being on topic as not saying anything adverse about Trump.
                  
                  If I say that what so many of say are accomplishement are seen as otherwise, why can’t I say that?

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Not sure what more I can say. I have asked the moderator to have a look and remove it if they feel it is inappropriate for Hubpages. 
                     
                     "If I say that what so many of say are accomplishement are seen as otherwise, why can’t I say that?" Cred
                     
                     I believe that when someone creates a thread, they have the right to define the topic and ask others to respect that focus. It’s clear there are already plenty of threads dedicated to criticizing Trump, so I don’t see why there can’t be one space where people are invited to share positive views without constant negativity.
                     
                     I actively participate in many threads, most of which allow for open discussion and opposing views, and that's fine. But for this particular thread, I wanted to create a more focused and uplifting space. Before posting, I reviewed the forum rules carefully, and I don’t believe I’ve violated any of them.  Like I said, I have asked the monitor to review the thread and take it down if they feel it has broken any of HP's rules. I certainly did not feel it would cause a problem.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                        You can define the topic but not the varied amounts opinions found and associated therein. You Trump lovers did not hesitate to bring opposing thoughts to those topics that disparaged Trump.
                        
                        The type of thread you want is not realistic in a large public forum, circumscribing participation outside of the topic, not your desired responses. Before long, you ALL will be doing it, censoring contrary material and information out of fear, that your Emperor will be found with no clothing.
                        
                        What are you afraid of? The nature of this forum is that there are no mutual admiration societies allowed.
                        
                        Let’s get the rules out and make it clear what can and cannot occur in this forum activity?

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Cred, I offered you a link to the rules. I also shared that I am having the moderator have a look at the thread. I don't see that I have broken any of the written rules.

                           replyreport
                        2. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                           I offered you a link to the rules. Here are the rules. I do not feel I have broken any rules.
                           
                           Rules and Etiquette
                           Below are some basic guidelines to adhere to:
                           
                           Stick to the topic. Please stay on the thread’s topic when replying to an existing thread. If you don’t see an open thread about something you’d like to discuss, please open a new thread.
                           
                           Keep it civil. Debate and disagreements on points of substance are okay, but personal attacks, hate speech, petty bickering, trolling, and thread hijacking are not tolerated.
                           
                           By choosing to be civil, you make the discussion better for everyone involved.
                           
                           Be helpful and supportive. We’re all here to learn, so please be constructive when providing feedback. Harassing, threatening, or intimidating other Hubbers is against our Terms of Use.
                           
                           Spread the word. Encourage Hubbers seeking help to visit the Forum to find solutions to their problems or just to chat and unwind.
                           
                           The Forums are for discussion, not self-promotional link-posting. We encourage you to avoid posting promotional or irrelevant links, be they to articles or external sites in which you have a vested interest.
                           
                           The two places where we do encourage you to post links to your articles are in the HubChallenges section and the Improving Your Article section.
                           
                           No cross-posting. Posting the same message to more than one Forum or thread is seen as spamming.
                           
                           Be honest about your identity. While we don't prohibit having more than one HubPages account, we ask that you stick to a single persona in the Forums.
                           
                           The deceptive use of multiple accounts, especially in a single thread, is prohibited. The use of secondary accounts to circumvent a Forum ban is also prohibited.
                           
                           This type of behavior is also known as sockpuppeting.
                           Please use normal English. DON'T USE ALL UPPERCASE FOR YOUR TITLES OR IN THE BODY OF YOUR POST. It comes across as shouting.
                           
                           Also avoid txt msg abbreviations.
                           
                           Avoid signatures. Please do not sign your posts and especially do not sign your posts and include a link to another site.
                           
                           A link to your profile page is included with every post, and you can put information about yourself and links to sites you'd like to promote on your profile page.
                           
                           Only use the report button on posts you think break the forum rules. Please do not report posts just because you do not like them.

                           replyreport
                           1. 81

                              Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                              I will abide by the outcome once clear direction comes my way. But, all this has diminished my opinion of you in my eyes.

                              replyreport
                              1. 84

                                 Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 I'm sorry you feel that way. I've always enjoyed our conversations, and I honestly believed we could engage in spirited discussion and still come out the other side with mutual respect intact.
                                 
                                 To be completely honest, I don’t quite understand your objection to this particular thread. I created it simply as a space for those who support President Trump to highlight and celebrate his accomplishments, without getting caught up in constant back-and-forth debates. As I mentioned before, there are already plenty of threads available for open discussion and debate about Trump, and I welcome those. This one was just meant to be something different.
                                 
                                 If you'd like, you’re more than welcome to start your own thread to share concerns or criticisms; that’s completely fair. I did read the rules, and I genuinely believed this would fall within them. I wasn't trying to shut anyone out, just offering a small alternative lane for a specific kind of discussion.
                                 
                                 As for your comment, “But all this has diminished my opinion of you in my eyes, I have to say, that's unfortunate. I’ve always approached our exchanges with good faith and respect, and it’s disappointing to hear that expressing support or trying a different format would alter your view of me so sharply. Hopefully, you will give this situation a bit more thought. I can't even say I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I just don't fully agree with it.

                                 replyreport
2. 84

   Sharlee01posted 3 weeks ago

   June 30  --- President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday afternoon officially lifting decades-old U.S. sanctions on Syria. According to the order, the U.S. remains committed to supporting a Syria that is “stable, unified, and at peace with itself and its neighbors.” The move directs the State, Commerce, and Treasury departments to roll back sanctions and ease export restrictions, while keeping strong measures in place against former President Assad, his inner circle, and anyone tied to terrorism, drug trafficking, chemical weapons, or Iranian proxy forces.
   
   White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt clarified that the sanctions relief is meant to help stabilize Syria and open the door for peaceful development, not to let Assad or bad actors off the hook. Sanctions will remain on known abusers, including those associated with ISIS and Iran-backed militias.
   
   This follows President Trump’s meeting last month with Syria’s new interim leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, alongside Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Al-Sharaa, who led the ouster of Bashar al-Assad in March with the militant group HTS (formerly linked to al Qaeda), has been pushing hard for U.S. recognition. He reportedly promised major reforms, a power-sharing government, cooperation with Israel, and even floated the idea of building a Trump Tower in Damascus as a symbol of new relations.
   
   Trump’s special envoy to Syria, Ambassador Tom Barrack, described the process of dismantling the sanctions as “tedious, detailed, and excruciating,” pointing out that many of these restrictions dated back to Assad’s brutal rule and even to Syria’s 1979 terrorism designation—something Congress would still need to address separately.
   
   Brad Smith from the Treasury Department emphasized that while the fall of Assad marks a turning point, the U.S. isn’t abandoning its watch. “We’ll remain vigilant,” he said, “and use our authority if our security or financial systems are threatened.”
   
   The bigger geopolitical play seems clear: Trump is hoping Syria’s shift opens the door to a future peace deal with Israel. While Israeli officials have expressed concern about losing leverage by removing sanctions, one senior U.S. official pushed back hard: “We’re not in the business of nation-building. If Syria wants peace and prosperity, leaning toward Israel is in their best interest.”
   
   When asked about the lack of preconditions, the official was blunt: “The president ripped off the sanctions without strings attached. Leverage isn’t the goal, peace is.”
   
   Though the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza continues to complicate things, the administration is optimistic. One official summed it up: “There’s going to be peace in Gaza.”
   
   I appreciate Trump working toward peace in the Middle East. He has taken on a huge task. Hopefully, he can get results.

   replyreport
3. 84

   Sharlee01posted 3 weeks ago

   The Trump administration is working to crack down on crime that includes human suffering, safety, and espionage.  Keeping his promise --- Keep America Safe Again
   
   DOJ directs US attorneys to seek to revoke the citizenship of naturalized Americans over crime
   Justice Department memo directs attorneys to target terrorists, human traffickers, and fraudsters in denaturalization proceedings.
   
   The Justice Department issued a memo directing US attorneys to "prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings" as part of an effort by the Trump administration to crack down on crime that includes human suffering, safety, and espionage.
   
   The memo from Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate states that denaturalization cases against "individuals who pose a potential danger to national security, including those with a nexus to terrorism, espionage, or the unlawful export from the United States of sensitive goods, technology, or information raising national security concerns" are one of the key priorities.
   
   "The benefits of civil denaturalization include the government’s ability to revoke the citizenship of individuals who engaged in the commission of war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or other serious human rights abuses; to remove naturalized criminals, gang members, or, indeed, any individuals convicted of crimes who pose an ongoing threat to the United States; and to prevent convicted terrorists from returning to U.S. soil or traveling internationally on a U.S. passport," Shumate wrote.
   
   "The Department of Justice may institute civil proceedings to revoke a person’s United States citizenship if an individual either ‘illegally procured’ naturalization or procured naturalization by ‘concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation,’" he added
   
   Shumate said the Justice Department’s Civil Division should "prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence."
   
   The memo said attorneys should pursue denaturalization cases against individuals who "committed human trafficking, sex offenses, or violent crimes" and those who "engaged in various forms of financial fraud against the United States (including Paycheck Protection Program (‘PPP’) loan fraud and Medicaid/Medicare fraud)."
   
   It also calls for attorneys to initiate cases against "individuals who further or furthered the unlawful enterprise of criminal gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and drug cartels" and "individuals who engaged in fraud against private individuals, funds, or corporations."
   
   Overall, the memo lists ten priority categories for denaturalization.
   
   Two days after issuing the memo, the Justice Department said it "secured the denaturalization of a convicted collector and distributor of child sexual abuse material."
   
   So is this legal?
   
   Legal Foundation for Denaturalization in the U.S.
   Under 8 U.S. Code § 1451, the U.S. government has the authority to revoke (denaturalize) citizenship through civil court proceedings if:
   
   Citizenship was illegally procured (e.g., not meeting lawful residency requirements, or being ineligible in the first place).
   
   Citizenship was obtained through fraud, willful misrepresentation, or concealment of a material fact.
   
   This has always been legal. What the memo you referred to does is prioritize the enforcement, not invent or expand the law.

   replyreport
4. 84

   Sharlee01posted 3 weeks ago

   Make Americas Media Great Again
   
   Pretty incredible how this all played out. CBS and Paramount are forking over what could end up being more than $30 million to settle with Trump over his election interference lawsuit. They’re not admitting guilt, of course, but when you’re handing over that kind of money and agreeing to change your internal policies, it says a lot. Trump’s getting $16 million upfront, and there’s reportedly more to come in the form of future ad space or public service announcements supporting conservative causes. That’s a bigger payout than what ABC gave him last year to settle their own defamation case, and that was $15 million plus legal fees.
   
   The heart of this is that CBS edited an awkward Harris response about Netanyahu and split it across two different shows, making her look way more polished than she actually was right before the 2024 election. That’s not just shady, it’s the kind of media bias people have been calling out for years. And the FCC had to step in to get CBS to release the unedited footage, which says it all. If nothing was done wrong, why withhold it?
   
   Now they’ve got this new rule — nicknamed the “Trump Rule” — where they’re required to release full, unedited transcripts of interviews with presidential candidates moving forward. That wouldn’t even be necessary if there was real transparency to begin with. And while folks like Bernie Sanders are calling it an attack on the First Amendment, let’s be real — holding a news outlet accountable for editing content in a misleading way is not the same as trying to silence free speech.
   
   The way this has snowballed, resignations, internal disagreements at CBS, and massive payouts, makes it pretty clear Trump had a strong case. He didn’t sue over bad coverage. He sued over deceptive editing during an election. Big difference.

   replyreport
5. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   President Donald Trump is once again turning to the U.S. Supreme Court, this time asking it to overturn lower court rulings that prevent him from removing three Biden-era officials from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The emergency appeal, filed Wednesday by Trump’s Justice Department, challenges decisions from lower courts that have blocked his efforts to fire Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr., all appointed by President Biden to seven-year terms on the independent agency tasked with ensuring consumer product safety.
   
   This appeal follows a prior Supreme Court decision in May that sided with Trump in a similar dispute involving the removal of officials from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The White House argues that the president’s authority to remove executive officials is clear and constitutionally supported, but that activist judges continue to defy these rulings and undermine the executive branch’s power.
   
   White House spokesman Harrison Fields slammed the lower courts, calling them “rogue” and accusing them of ignoring the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions. “It’s outrageous that we must once again seek Supreme Court intervention,” he said. “President Trump remains committed to fulfilling the American people's mandate, despite these relentless obstructions.”
   
   The three Democratic regulators claim Trump attempted to oust them without cause, violating the long-held standard that members of the CPSC, as with many independent agencies, can only be fired for neglect or wrongdoing. A federal judge in Maryland agreed with their argument, and an appeals court upheld that ruling earlier this week.
   
   In its petition, the Trump administration argues that the CPSC wields significant executive authority, such as issuing rules, launching enforcement actions, and even, in coordination with the Attorney General, prosecuting criminal cases. Solicitor General John Sauer pointed to the recent Supreme Court decision in Wilcox, saying it should clearly apply here, as it confirmed the president’s ability to remove executive officials who exercise substantial authority.
   
   “None of this should be possible after Wilcox, which squarely controls this case,” Sauer wrote. He added that the actions of the three CPSC officials have created disorder within the agency and reflect direct opposition to the president’s agenda.
   
   The emergency request is now in the hands of Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees appeals from the court that upheld the Maryland ruling. This move could have wide-ranging implications for how presidents, current and future, assert authority over independent federal agencies and the officials who lead them.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      If a President can appoint them... a President should be able to fire them.
      
      Common Sense.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         I completely agree, and I believe he’s poised to set another important precedent for the rights all presidents should have.

         replyreport
6. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   He Is On A Roll
   
   Finally! President Trump’s bill passed — a huge win for the American people! This is exactly the kind of leadership we need: bold, decisive, and focused on putting our country first. So proud to support a president who gets things DONE!
   

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Fantastic. Saying a few prayers that maga folks disproportionately get to feel the impact of the provisions of this bill.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Interesting that you assume MAGA folks will disproportionately feel the impact of this bill. That’s a bold, and frankly, pretty uninformed, presumption. Policies rarely affect only one group exclusively; their consequences ripple through the entire country. Making sweeping assumptions like that not only oversimplifies complex issues but also risks alienating half the population. If you want to be taken seriously, it might help to think beyond partisan stereotypes and acknowledge reality in all its complexity.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            The bill WILL hit maga's harder than the rest of us.... In Mike Johnson's district alone, he's got over 40% of folks on medicaid, not to mention those who utilize the premium tax credits on the exchange that will also disappear.    More than 40% in Eastern Kentucky rely on Medicaid and the ACA.  Calif. 22nd district rep David Valadao... Represents an area that relies on Medicaid to the tune of     68%       Maga is a party of lower income,power educated  folks.
            
            We could go one by one, district by district of the Maga elected.   Steve Bannon was right when he said a lot of magas are on Medicaid.... How long you think these people are going to buy the schtick  that suffering is good for them?
            
            Regardless, my comment stands.. I hope that Maga folks who voted for this get to disproportionately reap what they've sown.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               I’ve shared everything I intend to share on this topic, and repeating myself won’t add anything new. From what I’ve seen, only a small number of people will lose Medicaid, and I’ve already posted all the exemptions. The bill, and now the law, make it clear that only those who are not eligible will lose coverage.
               
               I don’t make blanket judgments about people, nor do I believe I have the right to do so. Your comment, in my view, reflects your feelings on the matter, and I respect your right to hold that perspective.
               
               As for Trump and his promises to the MAGA community, he is following through, and I’m sure that brings them satisfaction. Personally, I’m pleased to see the things I voted for beginning to take shape.

               replyreport
7. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   Securing Our Farms, Securing Our Future: The Fight Against Foreign Infiltration
   
   The Trump administration is finally stepping up where past leaders failed, taking real action to stop foreign adversaries like China from getting a foothold in America through our farmland. On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture rolled out its National Farm Security Action Plan, a move designed to put an end to what many of us have long seen as an obvious national security threat: the infiltration of U.S. agriculture by hostile nations.
   
   Under this new plan, Chinese nationals would be banned from buying American farmland, and there will be serious scrutiny over who owns property near our military bases. This is more than policy, it’s common sense. As USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins put it, our farms aren’t just about crops, they’re the foundation of our American way of life. That’s exactly why China and others have tried to exploit them. Rollins was blunt and right: our agricultural system has been used against us, from land purchases to data theft, and it needs to stop now.
   
   What makes this all the more disturbing is how the Biden administration let things slide. While President Trump is working to block foreign adversaries from buying up our land, Biden stood by as China increased its grip. Land deals went through under his watch. It’s no secret that during Biden’s term, Chinese entities continued purchasing American farmland, including acreage dangerously close to U.S. military installations. Where was the outrage then?
   
   Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth voiced what many Americans have been thinking: we deserve to know who owns the land around our most sensitive sites. It’s not just a real estate issue, it’s a defense and espionage issue. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem hit the nail on the head when she reminded everyone that a country that can’t feed itself is a country that can be controlled. During her time as governor of South Dakota, she took real action by banning foreign adversaries from buying farmland. That kind of leadership is what we need on a national scale.
   
   And let’s not forget what Attorney General Pam Bondi added—agroterrorism is becoming a growing threat, and arrests have already been made. Just last month, two Chinese nationals were caught in Michigan with a known agroterrorism agent. This isn’t hypothetical; it’s happening right now.
   
   Some states have already taken matters into their own hands, passing laws to block land grabs by those connected to hostile foreign powers. But until now, we lacked decisive federal action. That’s changing fast under this administration.
   
   While the media wants to distract us with drama and noise, the real story is this: Trump is confronting threats that others ignored. He’s putting American farmers, American land, and American families first. It’s about time.

   replyreport
8. 61

   Willowarborposted 2 weeks ago

   What? Trump is going to continue to fund the war in ukraine? I thought we couldn't afford it? I thought people voted for him because he wasn't going to continue using America's resources for war? Folks should review their previous posts on this before you flip flop ..

   replyreport
9. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   President Trump is once again showing the world what real leadership looks like. Under his direction, a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza was reached, something the left has talked about for years but never delivered under the Biden administration. That ceasefire has now held, saving countless lives in a region torn by decades of violence and hardship. While the radical left has spent now years protesting for a ceasefire in Gaza, it’s Trump who finally stepped in and stopped the bloodshed. The media seems to have ignored that it was Trump to halted the carnage in his first months as president.
   
   At the same time, President Trump continues his push for peace in Eastern Europe. He worked tirelessly to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table, but it has become painfully clear that Putin is not willing to negotiate.
   
   Trump is not a man who governs based on outdated strategies or stale doctrine. He evaluates each issue in real time, recognizing that war is not stagnant; it’s fluid. And when the facts on the ground change, so does his approach. That’s the mark of real leadership: not clinging to the past, but acting on what’s happening now.
   
   He’s worked tirelessly to bring peace between Russia and Ukraine, seeking a diplomatic solution that would spare lives. But as he recently said,
   
   “I’ve tried to make peace, but Putin’s not interested. Ukraine has become an open target, and I will not sit by and watch Ukrainians be killed.”  President Trump
   
   That’s why President Trump made the tough call to continue supplying defensive weapons to Ukraine. Not because he supports endless war, but because he will not stand by and witness death unfettered. His every action is grounded in the principle of saving lives and defending innocent people. As his ceasefire has done in GAZA.
   
   While the left plays political games, Trump leads with strength, clarity, and conviction. He’s proving once again that he’s a president of action, not excuses—results, not rhetoric.

   replyreport
10. 84

    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

    
    Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
    
    Winning! 
    
    President Trump just delivered another massive win for the American people. On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of his executive authority to implement mass layoffs and restructuring within the federal workforce, overturning a lower court injunction that had previously blocked his plan. The ruling now allows the Trump administration to begin downsizing large federal agencies, eliminating thousands of positions deemed non-essential and unaccountable. This decision empowers the president to reorganize the executive branch in accordance with long-standing civil service reform goals. The majority opinion emphasized the constitutional authority vested in the president to oversee executive departments, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett siding with the administration.
    
    This is a major step in draining the swamp, something President Trump has promised all along, and now he has the full legal backing to act. The ruling reinforces the president’s ability to eliminate waste, reduce bureaucracy, and bring much-needed accountability to the federal government. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson led the dissent, warning the decision could enable wide-scale overreach, but the Court’s conservative majority recognized this for what it is: a constitutionally grounded move to restore efficiency, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in Washington. The federal bureaucracy has ballooned over decades with little oversight. This ruling finally gives Trump the green light to clean house and put the American taxpayer back in control.
    
    Not sure Trump has lost any in the Supreme Court. Using the law and the Constitution to keep his promises.  Now this is refreshing.

    replyreport
11. 84

    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

    On July 8, 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William J. Pulte announced a significant policy shift regarding credit scoring for federally backed mortgages. In a post on X, he stated: “Effective today, to increase competition to the Credit Score Ecosystem and consistent with President Trump’s landslide mandate to lower costs, Fannie and Freddie will ALLOW lenders to use Vantage 4.0 Score…” While his announcement gained attention for its political framing, the change itself is rooted in long-standing regulatory processes. The FHFA, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had already approved VantageScore 4.0 as an acceptable credit model through its formal validation process, designed to foster competition and broaden credit access. The policy officially went into effect on July 8, making it a factual change—not just a public statement. This means lenders working with Fannie and Freddie can now use VantageScore 4.0 alongside traditional FICO scores, which could expand homeownership opportunities and reduce costs for consumers, especially those with limited credit histories. This is leadership at work and working for all Americans — great solutions to lower costs and expand homeownership. Honestly, does the Trump administration ever sleep? LOL.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

       Have you seen mortgage rates and housing prices?  No one is affording a home right now, especially first time buyers. This is laughable

       replyreport
12. 84

    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

    DOJ lands legal victory as federal judge allows $800M in grants to be clawed back
    
    The Trump administration landed a legal victory on Monday after a federal judge allowed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims.
    
    U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington denied a preliminary injunction that five organizations sought against the DOJ’s cancellation of more than 360 grant awards and granted a motion to dismiss the case. Metha described the DOJ’s actions as "shameful" in his ruling, though he ultimately declared that the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection.
    
    Judges are supposed to be impartial and not political. According to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, they are required to avoid both actual impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety. This includes staying clear of anything that suggests bias, favoritism, or political influence. Judges are expected to make decisions based solely on the law and the facts presented in court, regardless of their personal beliefs or ideologies. While all judges are human and naturally have opinions, they are bound by ethical obligations to set those views aside when performing their duties. Federal judges, in particular, are given lifetime appointments to insulate them from political pressure, reinforcing the idea that the judiciary must remain independent and fair. When a judge appears to act in a politically motivated or biased way, it undermines public trust in the legal system, even if proving actual legal bias is difficult. So yes, your understanding is correct: judges are supposed to remain nonpartisan and neutral in both appearance and conduct.
    
    Guess this judge forgot all of the above.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

       Resending 800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims???  That's a good thing?
       
       Yeah I guess in Trump World where  cruelty really is the point...

       replyreport
13. 84

    Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

    Trump is using the high court to make sure he is not breaking the law. Genius
    
    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in a brief concurrence that the high court’s 8-1 order clearing the way for President Donald Trump to continue downsizing the government was the right decision.
    
    "I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates," Sotomayor wrote. "Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much."
    
    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent in a Supreme Court order handed down on Tuesday stood out enough that it prompted one of her liberal colleagues to voice disagreement with her.
    
    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in a brief concurrence that the high court’s 8-1 order clearing the way for President Donald Trump to continue downsizing the government was the right decision.
    
    "I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates," Sotomayor wrote. "Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much."

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

       Again, another decision  that has nothing to do with the merits.

       replyreport
14. 84

    Sharlee01posted 13 days ago

    Launch of “Truth+” streaming service
    Trump Media & Technology Group unveiled Truth+, a global conservative streaming platform now available on iOS, Android, Apple TV, Roku, and Fire TV. It features live and on‑demand “non‑woke” content, in partnership with Newsmax. This is a major expansion beyond Truth Social

    replyreport
15. 84

    Sharlee01posted 23 hours ago

    Trump's Big Beautiful Bold Agenda to Reclaim America
    
    GM’s $1.1 Billion Tariff Hit Comes With a Silver Lining for American Workers
    
    GM confirmed today that it took a $1.1 billion loss in the second quarter of 2025 due to U.S. tariffs on imported vehicles and parts. While that short-term hit grabbed headlines, the company’s response points to a deeper story, one that may mark a real shift in American industrial strategy.
    
    Instead of scaling back, GM is doubling down on U.S. manufacturing, committing $4 billion to upgrade domestic plants and move more production stateside. According to CEO Mary Barra, these upgrades will begin delivering results within 18 months, helping to shield the company from future tariff exposure. She described this move as part of GM’s broader effort to position itself “for a profitable, long-term future.”
    
    CFO Paul Jacobson echoed that confidence, saying the company has a strategy to mitigate a significant portion of the impact and expects stabilization once trade deals normalize.
    
    Despite the tariff burden, which is expected to total $4–$5 billion by year’s end, GM maintained its full-year earnings outlook, projecting adjusted EBIT between $10 billion and $12.5 billion. That decision reflects a belief that increased sales, especially in the EV segment, and greater operational efficiency will balance out the cost pressures.
    
    This isn’t just about protecting profits, it’s also about reshaping GM’s footprint. The investment will reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, bolster U.S. competitiveness, and bring more American jobs back to the table.
    
    From a broader perspective, this is exactly the kind of shift that Trump’s “America First” tariff policy aimed to trigger: encouraging U.S. companies to reinvest at home, rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity, and reduce dependence on overseas production, particularly from China.
    
    So while critics focus on the near-term cost, GM’s strategy shows that tariffs may be doing what they were meant to do. If companies like GM continue to adapt this way, it could signal a major step forward for American industry and workers. And in that sense, Trump’s trade policy appears to be working.

    replyreport