Democrat introducing bill to rehire veterans caught up in Trump mass firings
Rep. Derek Tran (D-Calif.) is introducing legislation that would require the government to rehire veterans who were terminated without reason under the Trump administration's mass layoffs across federal departments and agencies.
The bill also would require agencies to submit reports to Congress with justification for veteran dismissals, according to The Associated Press.
'They sacrificed so much to protect our country, to defend our freedom. Now they've been kicked to the curb,' Tran, an Army veteran told The Associated Press.
Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee said almost 6,000 veterans have been fired across the federal government.
Tran said widespread intent to fire government employees is a sign of disruption to the status quo in an effort to advance the wealthy.
'It's almost like permission to let them do what they want to do, and they feel like they can come in and disrupt by firing, by cutting a bunch of employees just so that they save government or they save this country X amount of dollars, only to transfer that over to tax cuts for them,' Tran told The Associated Press.
The California lawmaker said he hopes Republicans will support his new bill, which would impact representative's constituents on both sides of the aisle.
'I've been trying to get support. I'm trying to not make this a partisan issue. This is just the right thing for our veterans,' Tran said.
'So in my communication with colleagues across the aisle, I want to make sure that they understand this is not a Democratic bill. This is a bill to protect those who served.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump has gotten his way and will oversee a military parade in Washington, D.C., this summer on the Army's birthday, which also happens to be his own. Plans call for nearly 7,000 troops to march through the streets as 50 helicopters buzz overhead and tanks chew up the pavement. One option has the president presiding from a viewing stand on Constitution Avenue as the Army's parachute team lands to present him with an American flag. The prospect of all this martial pomp, scheduled for June 14, has elicited criticism from many quarters. Some of it is fair—this president does not shy away from celebrating himself or flexing executive power, and the parade could be seen as an example of both—but some of it is misguided. Trump has a genius for showmanship, and showcasing the American military can be, and should be, a patriotic celebration. The president wanted just such a tribute during his first term, after seeing France's impressive Bastille Day celebrations. Then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly refused, effectively threatening to resign by telling the president to ask his next secretary of defense. Three secretaries of defense later, Trump has gotten enthusiastic agreement from current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Criticism of the display begins with its price tag, estimated as high as $45 million. The projected outlay comes at a time of draconian budget cuts elsewhere: 'Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful,' Republicans Against Trump posted on X. 'Peanuts compared to the value of doing it,' Trump replied when asked about the expense. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.' [Read: The case for a big, beautiful military parade] Other prominent critics of the Trump administration have expressed concern that the parade's real purpose is to use the military to intimidate the president's critics. The historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack, 'Trump's aspirations to authoritarianism are showing today in the announcement that there will be a military parade on Trump's 79th birthday.' Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the progressive media company MeidasTouch, posted, 'The Fuhrer wants a Nuremberg style parade on his birthday.' Experts on civil-military relations in the United States also expressed consternation. 'Having tanks rolling down streets of the capital doesn't look like something consistent with the tradition of a professional, highly capable military,' the scholar Risa Brooks told The New York Times. 'It looks instead like a military that is politicized and turning inwardly, focusing on domestic-oriented adversaries instead of external ones.' Even the military leadership has been chary. During Trump's first term, then–Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Paul Selva reflected that military parades are 'what dictators do.' But these critics may well be projecting more general concerns about Trump onto a parade. Not everything the Trump administration does is destructive to democracy—and the French example suggests that dictatorships are not the only governments to hold military displays. The U.S. itself has been known to mount victory parades after successful military campaigns. In today's climate, a military parade could offer an opportunity to counter misperceptions about the armed forces. It could bring Americans closer to service members and juice military recruitment—all of which is sorely needed. The American military is shrinking, not due to a policy determination about the size of the force needed, but because the services cannot recruit enough Americans to defend the country. In 2022, 77 percent of American youth did not qualify for military service, for reasons that included physical or mental-health problems, misconduct, inaptitude, being overweight, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or being a dependent. Just 9 percent of Americans ages of 16 to 24 (a prime recruitment window) are even interested in signing up. In 2023, only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals; the Army and Navy recruited less than 70 percent of their goals and fell 41,000 recruits short of sustaining their current force. Recruiting picked up dramatically in 2024 but remains cause for concern. One possible reason for this is that most Americans have little exposure to men and women in uniform. Less than 0.5 percent of Americans are currently serving in the military—and many who do so live, shop, and worship on cordoned military bases. Misperceptions about military service are therefore rife. One is that the U.S. military primarily recruits from minority groups and the poor. In fact, 17 percent of the poorest quintile of Americans serve, as do 12 percent of the richest quintile. The rest of the military is from middle-income families. Those who live near military bases and come from military families are disproportionately represented. The Army's polling indicates that concerns about being injured, killed, or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are major impediments to recruitment. Women worry that they will be sexually harassed or assaulted (the known figures on this in the U.S. military are 6.2 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men). Additionally, a Wall Street Journal–NORC poll found that far fewer American adults considered patriotism important in 2023 (23 percent) than did in 1998 (70 percent)—another possible reason that enthusiasm for joining up has dampened. [Read: The all-volunteer force is in crisis] A celebratory parade could be helpful here, and it does not have to set the country on edge. Americans seem comfortable with thanking military men and women for their service, having them pre-board airplanes, applauding them at sporting events, and admiring military-aircraft flybys. None of those practices is suspected of corroding America's democracy or militarizing its society. Surely the nation can bear up under a military parade once every decade or two, especially if the parade serves to reconnect veterans of recent wars, who often—rightly—grumble that the country tends to disown its wars as matters of concern to only those who serve in them. The risk, of course, is that Trump will use the occasion not to celebrate the troops but to corrode their professionalism by proclaiming them his military and his generals. This is, after all, the president who claimed that Dan Caine, his nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wore a MAGA hat and attested his willingness to kill for Trump, all of which Caine denies. This is also a president known to mix politics with honoring the military, as he did in Michigan, at Arlington National Cemetery, at West Point's commencement, and in a Memorial Day post on Truth Social calling his opponents 'scum.' Even so, the commander in chief has a right to engage with the military that Americans elected him to lead. The responsibility of the military—and of the country—is to look past the president's hollow solipsism and embrace the men and women who defend the United States. Being from a military family or living near a military base has been shown to predispose people toward military service. This suggests that the more exposure people have to the military, the likelier they are to serve in it. A big celebration of the country's armed forces—with static displays on the National Mall afterward, and opportunities for soldiers to mix with civilians—could familiarize civilians with their armed forces and, in doing so, draw talented young Americans to serve. A version of this essay originally appeared on AEIdeas from the American Enterprise Institute. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift
Elon Musk has deleted a tweet in which he alleged that Donald Trump was 'in the Epstein files'. The social media post was written on Thursday during a fierce war of words between the tech billionaire and the US president, after a dispute over Mr Trump's flagship spending Bill marked an abrupt end to their close alliance. As the disagreement escalated, Mr Musk also suggested that his former boss should be removed from office. 'The Epstein files' is a phrase colloquially used to describe intelligence the US authorities hold on Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier who died in 2019. However, by Saturday morning, Mr Musk had deleted his post on X, in a sign the row could be winding down. Mr Trump also appeared to suggest he was moving on from the spat, telling reporters during a flight to New Jersey: 'Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. I just wish him well.' The row began when Mr Musk – who last week stepped down as head of the Department of Government Efficiency – criticised the president's upcoming Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' and claimed it would increase the national debt. Mr Trump retaliated by saying the billionaire was upset because one of his allies had not been chosen for a role in the new Nasa administration. The president also suggested Mr Musk was annoyed because the White House's 'big beautiful Bill' would end tax breaks for electric vehicles worth billions of dollars to his car company Tesla. 'He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Mr Trump said. The president later said, during an Oval Office meeting with Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, that Mr Musk had 'Trump derangement syndrome'. The Republican later added that he was 'very disappointed' in the entrepreneur. However, Mr Musk was quick to hit back, alleging that the president had only won last year's election because of his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election. Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate... Such ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The world's richest man then published his post about the president and the Epstein files – but provided no evidence to back up his claim. Mr Trump and Epstein ran in the same social circles in New York and were pictured partying together on various occasions in the 1980s and 1990s. Epstein killed himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In February, Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, pledged to release the Epstein files. However, the 'phase one' documents that were released to a hand-picked group of conservative influencers contained information that was largely already in the public domain. As the row escalated, Mr Musk said he would decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which is used by Nasa to deliver and collect astronauts from the International Space Station. Mr Trump in turn threatened to cancel all the Tesla and SpaceX owner's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts,' he said. The president also reportedly considered selling or giving away the red Tesla car he purchased earlier this year. Tesla shares tanked as the rift intensified, amid investor fears that Mr Trump might hinder the roll-out of self-driving cars in the US, hitting the company's growth potential. Shares closed down 14.3 per cent on Thursday and lost about £111 billion, although the firm staged a partial recovery on Friday. An administration official claimed Mr Musk was 'clearly having an episode', while Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's former adviser, encouraged the president to initiate a formal investigation into Mr Musk's immigration status and have him 'deported from the country immediately'. As well as deleting the Epstein post, Mr Musk also appeared to walk back on his threat to decommission the Dragon spacecraft. When an X user suggested Mr Musk and Mr Trump 'take a step back for a couple days', the Tesla chief executive wrote: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' However, the billionaire has continued to keep a poll pinned to the top of his X profile which invites users of the social media platform to vote on whether it is time for a new political party in the US. Mr Musk wrote on Friday night: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80 per cent in the middle! This is fate.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
San Francisco Chronicle
15 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Here's what to know about American Samoans in Alaska who are being prosecuted after trying to vote
WHITTIER, Alaska (AP) — FOR MOVEMENT AT 9 A.M. EASTERN ON SATURDAY, 6/7. WITH VOTING-AMERICAN SAMOANS MAINBAR. They were born on U.S. soil, are entitled to U.S. passports and allowed to serve in the U.S. military, but 11 people in a small Alaska town are facing criminal charges after they tried to participate in a fundamental part of American democracy: voting. The defendants, who range in age from their 20s to their 60s, were all born in American Samoa — the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship at birth. Prosecutors say they falsely claimed American citizenship when registering or trying to vote. The cases are highlighting another side of the debate over exaggerated allegations of voting by noncitizens, as well as what it means to be born on American soil, as President Donald Trump tries to redefine birthright citizenship by ending it for children of people who are in the country illegally. Here's what to know about the prosecutions in Alaska and the status of American Samoans when it comes to voting. What is the Alaska case about? The investigation began after Tupe Smith, a mom in the cruise-ship stop of Whittier, decided to run for a vacant seat on the regional school board in 2023. She was unopposed and won with about 95% of the vote. That's when she learned she wasn't allowed to hold public office because she wasn't a U.S. citizen. Smith says she knew she wasn't allowed to vote in federal elections but thought she could vote in local or state races, and that she never would have voted if she knew it wasn't legal. She says she told elections workers that she was a U.S. national, not a citizen, and was told to check a box saying she was a citizen anyway. About 10 months later, troopers returned to Whittier and issued court summonses to her husband and nine other American Samoans. While Smith appeals the charges against her, the state filed charges against the others in April. The state argues that Smith's false claim of citizenship was intentional, and her claim to the contrary was undercut by the clear language on the voter application forms she filled out in 2020 and 2022. The forms said that if the applicant did not answer yes to being over 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, 'do not complete this form, as you are not eligible to vote.' Why can't American Samoans vote in the U.S.? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution promises U.S. citizenship to those born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction. American Samoa has been U.S. soil since 1900, when several of its chiefs ceded their land and vowed allegiance to the United States. For that reason, Smith's lawyers argue, American Samoans must be recognized as U.S. citizens by birthright, and they should be allowed to vote in the U.S. But the islands' residents have never been so considered — Congress declined to extend birthright citizenship to American Samoa in the 1930s — and many American Samoans don't want it. They worry that it would disrupt their cultural practices, including communal land ownership. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that in 2021 when it declined to extend automatic citizenship to those born in American Samoa, saying it would be wrong to force citizenship on those who don't want it. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. People born in all other U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam — are U.S. citizens. They can vote in U.S. elections if they move to a state. American Samoans can participate in local elections on American Samoa, including for a nonvoting representative in Congress. Have other states prosecuted American Samoans for trying to vote? Supporters of the American Samoans in Whittier have called the prosecutions unprecedented. One of Smith's attorneys, Neil Weare, suggested authorities are going after 'low-hanging fruit' in the absence of evidence that illegal immigrants frequently cast ballots in U.S. elections. Even state-level investigations have found voting by noncitizens to be exceptionally rare. In Oregon, officials inadvertently registered nearly 200 American Samoan residents to vote when they got their driver's licenses under the state's motor-voter law. Of those, 10 cast ballots in an election, according to the Oregon Secretary of State's office, but officials found they did not intend to break the law and no crime was committed. In Hawaii, one resident who was born in American Samoa, Sai Timoteo, ran for the state Legislature in 2018 before learning she wasn't allowed to hold public office or vote. She also avoided charges. Is there any legislation to fix this? American Samoans can become U.S. citizens — a requirement not just for voting, but for certain jobs, such as those that require a security clearance. However, the process can be costly and cumbersome. Given that many oppose automatic citizenship, the territory's nonvoting representative in Congress, Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, has introduced legislation that would streamline the naturalization of American Samoans who do wish to become U.S. citizens. The bill would allow U.S. nationals in outlying U.S. territories — that is, American Samoa — to be naturalized without relocating to one of the U.S. states. It would also allow the Department of Homeland Security to waive personal interviews of U.S. nationals as part of the process and to reduce fees for them. ___ Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska, and Johnson from Seattle.
