'Chaos,' 'unacceptable': Fetterman rips Democratic handling of border in bipartisan discussion
Both Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman and GOP Sen. Dave McCormick spoke in a bipartisan forum about the importance of border security, with Fetterman going so far as to call out his own party on the issue.
"I've kind of, I've lost some support in my party. I thought the border was really important, and our party did not handle the border appropriately," Fetterman told "Fox News Sunday" host Shannon Bream during a FOX Nation presentation of The Senate Project series on Monday.
"Look at the numbers, 267,000, 300,000 people showing up at our border. And, you know, we can all agree that's roughly the size of Pittsburgh. Now, that's unacceptable. And that's a national security issue. And that's chaos. So a secure border, being very pro-immigration, that's who I am as a Democrat."
Fetterman, who drew the ire of many Democrats when he supported the Laken Riley Act, explained how he has been at "odds with his base" but his values have "never changed" on the immigration issue, which polling shows was a key factor in President Donald Trump's election victory in November.
Musk's Departure Marks New Chapter For Government Efficiency In Border Security
"We are going to disagree and vote on different things," Fetterman said. "But for me, it's about trying to find the things we can win together and deliver those kinds of wins for Pennsylvania and ultimately for America."
Read On The Fox News App
Fetterman bucked his own party at multiple points in the discussion with McCormick, including as it relates to his party's handling of antisemitism on college campuses and in the streets.
Mohamed Sabry Soliman: What We Know About Illegal Immigrant Accused In Colorado Terror Attack
"What happened yesterday in Boulder? It's astonishing," Fetterman said, reacting to what the FBI is calling a terrorist attack against a pro-Israel group in Boulder, Colorado, over the weekend.
"You know, the kinds of, the rank antisemitism, it's out of control. And for me and as my friend just pointed out, this is just rampant across all the universities for all of these places, too. I mean, we really need to call it what it is. And now and for me, politically, being very, very firmly on the side of Israel, that kind of put parts of my party at odds for that."
The Senate Project series brings together sitting senators from opposing parties for civil dialogue about current political issues, with the goal of identifying solutions and bridging partisan divides. The series reflects the shared mission of the Kennedy Institute and Hatch Foundation to advance bipartisanship.
"Vigorous and open dialogue is an essential part of our democracy and having these two senators from opposite sides of the aisle discuss important issues of the day is a valuable contribution to the public discourse," Kennedy Institute Chairman Bruce A. Percelay said in a statement.
Fox News Digital's Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report.Original article source: 'Chaos,' 'unacceptable': Fetterman rips Democratic handling of border in bipartisan discussion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
35 minutes ago
Transgender troops face a deadline and a difficult decision: Stay or go?
WASHINGTON -- As transgender service members face a deadline to leave the U.S. military, hundreds are taking the financial bonus to depart voluntarily. But others say they will stay and fight. For many, it is a wrenching decision to end a career they love, and leave units they have led or worked with for years. And they are angry they are being forced out by the Trump administration's renewed ban on transgender troops. Active duty service members had until Friday to identify themselves and begin to leave the military voluntarily, while the National Guard and Reserve have until July 7. Then the military will begin involuntary separations. Friday's deadline comes during Pride Month and as the Trump administration targets diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying it's aiming to scrub the military of 'wokeness' and reestablishing a 'warrior ethos.' 'They're tired of the rollercoaster. They just want to go,' said one transgender service member, who plans to retire. 'It's exhausting.' For others, it's a call to arms. 'I'm choosing to stay in and fight,' a noncommissioned officer in the Air Force said. 'My service is based on merit, and I've earned that merit.' The troops, who mainly spoke on condition of anonymity because they fear reprisals, said being forced to decide is frustrating. They say it's a personal choice based on individual and family situations, including whether they would get an infusion of cash or possibly wind up owing the government money. 'I'm very disappointed,' a transgender Marine said. 'I've outperformed, I have a spotless record. I'm at the top of every fitness report. I'm being pushed out while I know others are barely scraping by.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said this is President Donald Trump's directive and what America voted for. The Pentagon, he said, is 'leaving wokeness & weakness behind' and that includes 'no more dudes in dresses.' Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, a veteran, and 22 other Democratic senators have written to Hegseth urging him to allow transgender troops to keep serving honorably. Already, more than 1,000 service members have voluntarily identified themselves as transgender and are slated to begin leaving, according to rough Defense Department estimates. Defense officials say there are about 4,240 active duty transgender troops but acknowledge the numbers are fuzzy. For many, the decision is financial. Those who voluntarily leave will get double the amount of separation pay they would normally receive and won't have to return bonuses or tuition costs. Those who refuse to go could be forced to repay reenlistment or other bonuses as high as $50,000. That was the tipping point for Roni Ferrell, an Army specialist at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington. Ferrell, 28, lives on base with her wife and two children and had planned to stay in the Army for at least another decade. But she said she felt 'backed into a corner' to sign the voluntary separation agreement, fearing she would have to repay an $18,500 reenlistment bonus. 'My commander basically said it was my only option in order to make sure my kids are taken care of,' Ferrell said. The Marine, who has served for more than 25 years, said she had planned to stay and fight, but changed her mind. Lawyers, she said, told her an involuntary separation would put a code in her record saying she was forced to leave 'in the interests of national security.' That designation, she said, could mean those involuntarily separated could lose their security clearances, hurting future job prospects. In a statement Friday, a defense official said the code 'is not intended' to trigger clearance revocations and that gender dysphoria is not a security reporting requirement, according to the director of national intelligence. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Cynthia Cheng-Wun Weaver, senior director of litigation for Human Rights Campaign, said it's important for troops to talk with judge advocates general in their services to ensure they understand the different procedures being implemented. The Air Force service member and a transgender officer in the Army National Guard both said they plan to stay and fight. Lawsuits over the ban continue and could change or block the policy. For troops involved in the court battles as plaintiffs, leaving voluntarily now would likely hurt their standing in the case. For others, it's simply dedication to their career. 'I've really embraced military culture, and it's embraced me,' the Air Force member said. 'It's not about money. It's the career that I love.' The Guard soldier echoed that sentiment, saying he will stay on "because it is important to me to serve. Frankly, I'm good at it, I'm well trained so I want to continue.' Others without bonuses to repay or who have been in the military only a short while and won't get much in separation bonus pay may opt to stay and see what happens. National Guard members who are heading to their monthly drill weekend or annual two-week drill in June could be required to go but serve as the gender they were assigned at birth. That means they would have to wear uniforms and haircuts of that gender, use that bathroom and be referred to as 'sir' or 'ma'am' based on that gender. For many, that could be close to impossible and create uncomfortable situations. 'If I were to show up to drill this weekend, I'd be expected to use all female facilities, I would be expected to wear a woman's uniform,' said the Army Guard officer, who transitioned to male about five years ago and says others in his unit know him as a man. 'I don't look like a woman. I don't feel like a woman. It would be disruptive to good order and discipline for me to show up and to tell my soldiers, you have to call me 'ma'am' now.' It's not clear if Guard units are handling it all the same way, and it could be up to individual states or commanders. Some may allow troops to postpone the drill or go on administrative leave. The service members interviewed by The Associated Press said they don't know what will happen once the deadline passes to leave voluntarily. Some believe that unit commanders will quickly single people out and start involuntary separations. Others say the process is vague, may involve medical review boards and could take months. The defense official said Friday that as the Pentagon takes these steps, it 'will treat our service members with dignity and respect.' Under Hegseth's directive, military commanders will be told to identify troops with gender dysphoria — when a person's biological sex does not match their gender identity — and send them to get medical checks to force them out of the service, defense officials have said. The order relies on routine annual health checks — so it could be months before that evaluation is scheduled. 'My real big sticking point is that this administration's whole push is to reform this country based around merit, and that gender, race, etc., should have no factor in hiring,' the Air Force service member said. 'If that's true, I'm solely being removed for my gender, and merit is no longer a factor.'
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Warren, Wyden warn Trump policies could ‘decimate retirees' savings'
Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) are pressing the Trump administration over the impact the president's sweeping trade policies will have on the finances of retirees and people close to retirement. 'The economic chaos triggered by President Trump's disastrous tariff policy has the potential to decimate retirees' savings,' they wrote in a letter to the White House on Friday that was obtained by The Hill. 'Simultaneously, the Trump Administration has taken a wrecking ball to the Social Security Administration (SSA), limiting seniors' access to their hard-earned benefits.' 'In doing this, the Trump Administration is making it harder for seniors across the country to make ends meet,' they added. Warren, 75, is the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, and Wyden, 76, is the top Democrat on the Finance Committee. The duo addressed the letter to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano. The White House didn't immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment. Fidelity Investments, the largest provider of 401(k) plans in the U.S., reported this week that average 401(k) balances fell 3 percent, to $127,100, during the first three months of the year. It said average individual retirement account (IRA) balances fell 4 percent to $121,983. The financial services giant said the slumps were primarily 'a result of market swings,' which have been widely attributed to Trump's unpredictable shifts on tariffs this year. 'President Trump's trade policy is creating economic chaos,' Warren and Wyden wrote in their letter to Cabinet officials, citing recent remarks from the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC) and Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell about the nation's economic outlook amid Trump's tariff swings. 'Of the 57 million retirees in this country, 77 percent rely on a combination of their savings — often in the form of a 401(k) — and Social Security benefits,' they continued in the letter. Their letter highlighted cuts to the SSA from the White House's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Dozens of Social Security offices across the country are expected to close this year as part DOGE's federal government makeover. The senators have asked Trump officials to provide them with details by Monday on whether the administration has conducted analyses of how the tariff policies are impacting retirees and inflation, as well as how DOGE cuts will impact the ability to access retirement benefits and whether the administration plans to offer additional support on seniors living on fixed incomes. The White House said earlier this week that the administration sent letters to countries to remind them that the president wants to broker more favorable trade deals while his tariffs are temporarily paused.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In emergency appeal, Trump asks Supreme Court to let him gut Education Department
WASHINGTON − The Trump administration on June 6 asked the Supreme Court to let it dismantle the Education Department and fire hundreds of its workers. President Donald Trump is trying to fulfil his campaign promise to end the Education Department and move school policy to the states. In an emergency appeal, the administration said the court should lift a judge's order blocking Trump from carrying out those moves while they're being challenged by Democratic-led states, school districts and teachers' unions. "The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed to carry out an agency's statutory functions, and whom they should be," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun said the White House's decision to fire more than 1,300 workers in March has prevented the federal government from effectively implementing legally required programs and services. Such changes can't be made without the approval of Congress, which created the department in 1979, Joun ruled. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals backed that decision. The court said the administration provided no evidence to counter Joun's "record-based findings about the disabling impact" of the mass firings and the transfer of some functions to other agencies. "What is at stake in this case, the District Court found, was whether a nearly half-century-old cabinet department would be permitted to carry out its statutorily assigned functions or prevented from doing so by a mass termination of employees aimed at implementing the effective closure of that department," Judge David Barron wrote for the panel of three circuit judges. An executive order Trump signed in March directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "facilitate the closure of the Department of Education." Republicans have long accused the federal government of holding too much power over local and state education policy, even though the federal government has no control over school curriculum. McMahon announced roughly half the agency's workforce would be eliminated through a combination of mass layoffs and voluntary buyouts. That would have reduced the staff from 4,133 workers when Trump began his second term in January to 2,183 workers. The administration also wants the Small Business Administration to take over student loans and move special education services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More: Trump can't erase the Education Department with an executive order. Here's why. Joun's order blocked the administration from transferring those functions and required the department to reinstate fired workers. The appeals court said Trump doesn't have to have as many Education Department employees as the previous administration but can't cut so many that the agency can't function as Congress intended. The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the harms to the government from having to rehire the workers as the litigation continues are greater than any harms the challengers said they'll suffer from diminished department services. More: What will happen at my school if Trump closes the Department of Education? The Education Department is legally required to ensure that students and teachers with disabilities are treated fairly and that low-income schools get the resources they need to keep pace with more affluent ones. The agency also issues regulations for colleges to hold them accountable for preparing graduates for well-paying jobs. And it functions like a giant bank, doling out billions of dollars to help people pay for college. Even if the Education Department were reorganized, which would take an act of Congress, its obligations under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 would have to continue elsewhere. The law passed during the Johnson administration requires the government to administer student loan programs, issue grants and ensure that schools receiving federal money don't discriminate against students. Contributing: Zachary Schermele This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump asks Supreme Court to let him gut Education Department
