Trump adds Paul Dabbar, Hung Cao to administration
President Trump welcomed Paul Dabbar and Hung Cao as officials in his second administration on Thursday, lauding them for their careers in public service.
Dabbar, a former nuclear submarine officer, has been dominated as deputy secretary of Commerce. Cao, a former GOP nominee to serve as a congressman and a senator from Virginia, was nominated to serve as under secretary of the Navy.
'I am pleased to nominate Paul Dabbar to be United States Deputy Secretary of Commerce. Paul will work closely with our Great Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, to bring back American Leadership in Global Commerce, Trade, and Technology,' Trump wrote in a Thursday Truth Social post.
'Paul served as my Under Secretary of Energy for Science, where he led the National Labs that started as the Manhattan Project, helping to drive semiconductors, AI, quantum, Energy Dominance, and our War-fighting capabilities,' he added of Dabbar, a graduate of the Naval Academy and Columbia University.
Trump praised Cao, a refugee from Vietnam, for his 25 years of service as a special operations officer.
'As a refugee to our Great Nation, Hung worked tirelessly to make proud the Country that gave his family a home. He went to our amazing United States Naval Academy, and later earned his Master's Degree in Physics,' Trump wrote on Truth Social.
'With Hung's experience both in combat, and in the Pentagon, he will get the job done.'
The appointments come as the Republican administration faces scrutiny over recent firings of top military officials including Charles 'CQ' Brown who formerly served as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa M. Franchetti.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
10 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court has 6 cases to decide, including birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the final days of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have six cases to resolve that were argued between January and mid-May. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The remaining opinions will be delivered Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts said. On Thursday, a divided court allowed states to cut off Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood amid a wider Republican-backed push to defund the country's biggest abortion provider. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump judge picks advance
Senate Republicans are facing major new issues with their domestic policy megabill after the chamber's parliamentarian advised senators that several provisions they are counting on to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in budget savings won't be able to pass along party lines. Those include major pieces of Medicaid policy, including a politically explosive plan to hold down Medicaid costs by cracking down on a state provider tax — a provision that is expected to have a nine-figure impact on the bill. Republicans now will have to try to rewrite major sections of their Finance bill or potentially leave out key policies. The decisions were detailed in a Thursday morning memo from Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. Other provisions now at risk include several GOP proposals to exclude undocumented residents from Medicaid, including by withholding federal funds from states that make them eligible for benefits. The rulings come at a critical time for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other GOP leaders, who are already facing a revolt inside their conference from members wary of the practical and political impacts of the Medicaid changes. Some GOP members have proposed reverting to a less drastic House plan, which would merely freeze the existing provider taxes, though it's unclear if that provision could also pass muster under Senate rules. Even though the ruling is a setback for Republicans — and to their timeline for taking an initial vote on Friday — they were aware based on private conversations with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough that parts of their initial plan were at risk of running aground of the chamber's rules. Republicans view the hurdle right now as 'technical' and are optimistic they will be able to get modified language into the bill. The revised language will still have to be blessed by the parliamentarian as complying with the chamber's rules. 'We knew that it was going to be an interesting conversation and we didn't know for sure how she was going to come down on it. But there are things that we can do, there are other ways of getting to that same outcome,' Thune said on Thursday morning, adding that Republicans might not ultimately get 'everything that we want' on the provider tax but will hopefully be able to salvage 'most of the reforms.' Some House Republicans are calling for Senate leadership to overrule the parliamentarian, an unprecedented step. 'The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people,' Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) posted on X. 'Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters.' Senate GOP leadership has repeatedly shot down that idea and Thune reiterated on Thursday morning that they wouldn't overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats took a victory lap after the ruling, noting the rulings blew a $250 billion hole in the megabill's savings. 'Democrats fought and won, striking healthcare cuts from this bill that would hurt Americans walking on an economic tightrope,' said Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a statement. The parliamentarian also ruled early Thursday against a Republican proposal to prohibit plans from not getting certain Obamacare payments if they cover abortion. There are 12 states that currently require such coverage and insurers have worried they don't have enough time to implement the payment change before the start of open enrollment. There remain some outstanding policies, such as Republicans' effort to defund Planned Parenthood and removal of a nursing home staffing rule. Republicans still aren't closing the door to taking a first vote on Friday. One person granted anonymity to discuss the schedule insisted that the parliamentarian's decision is 'not as fatal as Dems are portraying it to be' and that 'Friday still not off the table.
Axios
14 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court ruling on patients rights' could devastate Planned Parenthood
Medicaid patients don't have a right to freely choose their medical provider, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, in a case that carries major implications for Planned Parenthood. Why it matters: The first abortion-related case of President Trump 's second term could result in the defunding of Planned Parenthood, which derives a significant chunk of its funding from the safety net program and is the nation's biggest provider of abortion services. Driving the news: The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, stemmed from South Carolina's move to block Medicaid recipients from getting care at Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Trump administration backed South Carolina's position. The decision in favor of South Carolina, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the court's other conservative justices, may embolden more states to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri have already done so. It comes amid Trump administration efforts to withhold Title X family planning funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates. The sweeping GOP budget bill now being debated in Congress would also cut off Medicaid funding to the reproductive health group. Nearly half of patients who use Planned Parenthood health services have Medicaid coverage, according to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Shutting the provider out of Medicaid networks could effectively defund it — a longtime priority of conservative politicians and an explicit goal of Project 2025. Federal Medicaid funding is not used to pay for abortions with few exceptions. Less than half of states use their own dollars to cover abortion care under Medicaid. But defunding Planned Parenthood would not only further curtail abortion access. It would also diminish the availability of primary care services provided by the clinics, including STI and cancer screening, birth control prescriptions, vaccines and mental health help. What they're saying:"As far as Planned Parenthood and comparable providers are concerned, this case could be part of a one-two punch if Trump's Big Beautiful Bill passes," Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at University of California, Davis, wrote on X. "At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom," said Destiny Lopez, co-president and CEO of the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute.
