Angry Trump Kills 'Woke' Program—and Accidentally Screws MAGA Voters
The other day, during his intensive daily reading of complex policy papers, President Donald Trump noticed that a government initiative created by his predecessor had the word 'equity' in its title. Naturally, this caught his attention. As he appeared to conclude, this could only mean the initiative was designed to help undeserving minorities.
Which presented Trump with a ripe opportunity to demagogue about supposed reverse racism against white people. As Trump just announced on Truth Social, he has canceled the program, raging that it's 'RACIST.' He fumed: 'No more woke handouts based on race!'
Except there's a problem here. The program in question, the Digital Equity Act, contained huge amounts of money for governments in GOP-run states, as well as Democratic ones, to expand high-speed internet access in underserved communities—very much including red states' rural areas.
What's more, every red state government had submitted proposals designed to garner their states large amounts of this funding. These proposals were explicitly designed by these GOP governments partly to serve their states' rural areas.
While much of that money has already been granted, large sums still have not, according to the office of Senator Patty Murray, who is monitoring these expenditures as ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. With Trump moving to block these funds, these states now could be denied some or possibly all of that money, Murray's office says.
Murray's office says this cutoff is illegal, and some of these states will likely sue. 'Democrats will fight this every step of the way,' Murray said in an emailed statement.
In this saga, we once again see Trump—who is supposed to be remaking the GOP into a 'working-class party'—employing precisely the same race-mongering scam that Republicans have used for a very long time to downsize 'Big Government' in ways that hurt their own voters.
The Digital Equity Act—which was part of the bipartisan infrastructure law that former president Joe Biden signed in 2021—appropriated over $2 billion for grants to states to improve internet access. As The New York Times reports, states were already in the process of submitting plans to access that grant money, red ones included.
Here's where the story gets funny—or perhaps sad. Under the law, the federal government recognizes 'covered populations' that are underserved by high-speed internet. Each state's plan is supposed to be designed to use federal money to expand access to those populations.
One of these populations is 'members of a racial or ethnic minority.' Plainly, that's what constitutes the 'woke handouts based on race' that triggered Trump. After all, it sounds woke, doesn't it?
But as it happens, some of the other 'covered populations' include 'veterans' and 'people living in rural areas,' as well as 'low-income households.' Guess what: Those aren't necessarily minorities, and red states have a lot of people in those categories too!
Indeed, as the Times story details, the racial component of the law was actually pretty negligible. 'The law barely mentions race at all,' the Times observes.
But here's the real rub of the matter. A number of red states' proposals—submitted, again, to access federal money for themselves—explicitly detailed how they intend to use that money to expand digital access to their veterans and to their rural residents. You can see that in proposals submitted by Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, and many others.
'Individuals living in rural areas face the most urgent needs for broadband availability,' Alabama's proposal reads. And Iowa's proposal laments the internet 'accessibility gap' that persists 'particularly in rural communities.'
Here's the other rub of the matter. As of now, under the law, the federal government has approved tens of millions of dollars to well over a dozen red states, along with a lot of blue states. But many of these states don't have full access to that money, pending their completion of further steps in the approval process, Murray's office tells me.
This is where Trump entered the picture:
It's anybody's guess how serious Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick really is about this. But if the Commerce Department, which is implementing this law, follows Trump's command, it will do all it can to halt these payments.
Murray's office estimates that as much as hundreds of millions of dollars has still not been formally approved.
'It's insane that Trump is blocking resources to help make sure kids in rural school districts can get online all because he doesn't like the word 'equity,'' Murray, who originally sponsored this law, said in her statement. 'My Republican colleagues will need to explain to their constituents why the rural schools they represent won't get this funding for hotspots or laptops in the meantime.'
The irony here is that lack of digital access is a good example of a serious inequity (there's that 'woke' word again!) that impacts both low-income minorities and low-income rural whites in a similar way. This lack of access constitutes an unfairness embedded in the nation's patchwork infrastructure, something the federal government is well positioned to try to rectify across racial lines. So it's degenerate nonsense for Trump to pluck out the tiny fraction of this effort aimed at minorities and cast it as racism against white people.
'In today's world, everything is online, and yet folks in rural areas, low-income households, and racial and ethnic minorities all suffer from the same challenge—barriers that keep people offline,' Amy Huffman, policy director at the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, told me. 'It's absurd to say this is reverse racism.'
For decades, Republicans have demagogued about Big Government giving handouts to racial minorities, in order to justify slashing government programs in myriad ways that hurt their own voters. This has often been communicated in couched language: For Ronald Reagan it was 'welfare queens.' For Mitt Romney, it was the '47 percent' who were 'dependent on the government.' For Paul Ryan, it was the 'hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens to lives of dependency.'
We constantly hear that Trumpism is supposed to represent a break with that old form of Reaganesque, drown-government-in-the-bathtub, plutocratic GOP ideology, as part of its supposed project to remake the GOP as 'working class.' But the reality is that MAGA often takes that old race-baiting trick and, if anything, supercharges its racist overtones. This latest move is a case in point: Once again, here we see Trump carrying out precisely that same old scam. And once again, GOP voters may very well get screwed by it.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
Will Rubio move to ban Chinese students from the US?
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Protest erupts after immigration raid, police in standoff

Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Four of Trump's Cabinet secretaries coming to Santa Fe for Western governors meeting
Santa Fe may be one of the most liberal cities in New Mexico, if not the nation. But later this month, the City Different will host some of the most high-profile figures of the MAGA movement. Four U.S. Cabinet secretaries under the administration of Republican President Donald Trump will headline the 2025 annual meeting of the Western Governors' Association as keynote speakers June 23-24, the association announced Friday. They include Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin. Additional Trump administration officials may be coming to New Mexico, too, but their attendance has not yet been confirmed. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who chairs the association, said the four Cabinet secretaries' attendance represents the largest gathering of presidential administration officials at a Western Governors' Association meeting since the coronavirus pandemic. "I think the point is both Democratic and Republican governors want a chance to talk about their states and what their pressing issues are," Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview Friday. "All the governors in the National Governors Association signed a resolution that I helped lead that is against all the cuts that we're seeing in the budget reconciliation bill, so this is a chance to maybe, outside of the larger party platform lobbying, to talk about real issues," she said. The two-day meeting, held at the Eldorado Hotel and Spa, will be a star-studded event, at least in the world of politics. In addition to the four Cabinet secretaries, six Western governors — Mike Dunleavy of Alaska, Jared Polis of Colorado, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota, Arnold Palacios of the Northern Mariana Islands, Spencer Cox of Utah and Mark Gordon of Wyoming — are also scheduled to attend. "Together, these federal officials and state leaders will explore bipartisan solutions to the West's most pressing challenges," a news release states. The governors will also moderate panel discussions on various issues, including rural health care, outdoor recreation for disabled people, housing and post-wildfire flooding. 'True bipartisan dialogue' Amy Barela, chair of the Republican Party of New Mexico, said the state GOP welcomes the Cabinet secretaries and governors to New Mexico. In a statement, she called the meeting an extraordinary opportunity for New Mexico to be part of meaningful conversations on critical issues impacting the region. "We sincerely hope this event fosters true bipartisan dialogue — especially on matters like rural health care, which must prioritize the needs of New Mexican citizens first; outdoor recreation, which should begin with making our state a safer, more desirable destination; and post-wildfire flooding, where discussions must recognize not only the diverse landscapes but also the stark differences in recovery outcomes," she said. Barela noted New Mexico's wildfire recovery efforts are much further along under Republican-led leadership in Ruidoso and bipartisan leadership in Roswell, "while citizens in San Miguel and Mora counties under Democrat leadership are still suffering and waiting for meaningful recovery." "These contrasts must be acknowledged in any honest discussion about disaster response and preparedness," she said. Lujan Grisham, who announced her initiative would focus on housing when she was elected association chair last year, said she wants to make sure housing is a big topic of discussion during the meeting. "Affordable housing is my signature issue, and I want to make sure that we get a chance to really talk about the federal government's role and the state's regional roles at supporting each other to get more affordable housing in stock," she said. 'We are not shy' Lujan Grisham said Cabinet secretaries typically talk about their priorities and "what we should expect to see in the Trump administration." "They're beginning to hire people back," she said. "They want us to know that that's occurring, that they are wanting to engage with states directly, and this is really what the Western Governors' Association promotes, that irrespective of the federal administration, we want these partners to recognize states' rights and the state's priorities, and as they unfold their own [priorities], do no harm and make sure that you're engaging in the things that matter to us." All the governors will want to talk about regulatory reform and "to lean much heavier on states' rights," Lujan Grisham said. "I've been a proponent of that as well." Asked whether she expected friction, given proposed federal budget cuts, Lujan Grisham said the Western governors are "typically pretty respectful, which is one of the reasons that the [Western Governors' Association meeting] is a popular forum." But, she added, "we are not shy." "I just got back from Alaska," she said. "Gov. Dunleavy and the administration officials who were there will tell you I'm not shy. They know how I feel about the cuts and how I feel about some of the more draconian measures that are being pitched and proposed, and I think that they fully expect for us to be talking about it." The meeting also presents opportunities to discuss collaborations, she said. "There are some issues and proposals that could really help us," she said. "I'd like more help finishing up our transmission lines, so I do think there's an opportunity here, so we really try to make it a dialogue. But none of us are going to shy away from what our concerns are, and they didn't in the Biden administration, either." An economic boon Lujan Grisham called it "kind of fantastic" to have the meeting in a super blue city like Santa Fe. "It is valuable to show that we can stand on our own, that we are not afraid of having active dialogue," she said. "We can be respectful, but we can also make sure that we're heard. "And they should come here," she added. "They expect me to go to D.C. I expect them to come into my fantastic state and to talk about resolutions to the problems that they, A, may create, and B, they have the power to resolve. I like these juxtapositions." The meeting is expected to provide an economic boon for Santa Fe. More than 400 people are registered so far. While the meeting will include various panel discussions and keynote addresses, it won't be all business for the governors and administration officials. The agenda includes a dinner at the Santa Fe Opera, a reception at La Fonda on the Plaza and a working lunch meeting at the governor's residence. "I think the vast majority of governors are bringing their spouses and partners, and I think that speaks volumes about people wanting to be in New Mexico and wanting to be in the City Different, so I'm excited about that," she said. "It's a packed agenda, so we're going to be working overtime, so I'm excited about that, too." Lujan Grisham said her husband, Manny Cordova, may have his hands full, too. "We're trying to get Manny to do a red chile cooking lesson for the spouses," she said. "And maybe one last thing we'll do, we'll remind all the governors that the best green chile in the world is indeed in New Mexico."


CBS News
24 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"