Constituents to Bonamici: ‘Get louder' about Trump in DC
HILLSBORO, Ore. (KOIN) — On this Presidents Day night, a day that saw the Trump Administration and over the Department of Government Efficiency requests to access Social Security recipient information, about 700 people filed into the gym at for a town hall with US Rep. Suzanne Bonamici.
Broadly, they all wanted to know: What is going on in DC?
Many wanted to know why things are happening the way they're happening at the federal level with massive layoffs, confusion over deportation possibilities, the struggle at the Department of Education
Thousands pack Wyden town halls over uncertainty in DC
One of those who attended, Jim Carroll, asked the basic question on the minds of many:
'How do we how do we respond to what feels like constitutional violations? Our democracy is under threat that way,' Carroll said. 'What is she personally doing to try and change the way Congress is not asserting their rights?'
He added that 'what's happening to my trans friends, my immigrant friends is really painful.'
Bonamici, 70 and , admitted she's 'really worried about our future.'
But she said people need to keep fighting to show their distaste with what the Trump Administration is doing — and to let her know about what they're doing. Then she can bring those concerns to her colleagues in DC.
'The more people speak up, the more the representatives and senators will listen,' she said.
Those who spoke with KOIN 6 News said they were fired up after this town hall and want more to be done in Washington by their elected leaders.
'I was really impressed by the level of outrage, anger, frustration and desperation that we all feel,' said Beth of Forest Grove. 'And we're begging our representatives to do more and get louder.'
Hillsboro resident Cody echoed that.
'I think that we want to see our legislators being louder, being more coordinated and strategic,' Cody said. 'I'm somewhat hopeful, but I think what made me the most hopeful was seeing the turnout of the people and seeing their passion and their anger, you know, in person.'
This past Saturday, for largely the same reasons.
Bonamici has 4 more town halls scheduled for this week across her district:
Clatskanie Middle & High School, 6 p.m. February 18
Benson High School, 6 p.m. February 21
Neah-Kah-Nie High School – Lower Gym, 10 a.m. February 22 (with Sen. Jeff Merkley)
Clatsop Community College – Patriot Hall, 2 p.m. February 22 (with Sen. Jeff Merkley)
KOIN 6 News will continue to follow this story.
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
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
China a Hedge Against Trump Says Ex Canada Fin Min
00:00 Bill, thank you for being here. Happy to be here. It's great to be with you again. I'm not sure everyone in this audience is aware of the fact that you're one of the few people in this world who have successfully negotiated a trade agreement with President Trump. There you go. Bill was Canada's finance minister from 2015 to 2020. And in that role, you played a key part in the free trade agreement excuse me, the free trade talks with the United States and Mexico that produced the deal, at least referred to in the United States as the USMCA. Yeah, we call it Koosman. There you go. Now, as we all know, dozens of countries are trying to cut deals with the United States and avoid the punishing tariffs that President Trump announced on Liberation Day. Your experience and your insights are extremely valuable in this moment. What should they be prepared for? What is the secret to facing off against the Trump administration? Well, I wish I knew that secret because there would be people coming to my door on a regular basis, obviously. You know, my sense is you want to turn down the drama first and foremost. And I think you see the current Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, trying to turn down the drama. You want to get to the facts as rapidly as you can. You know, we while I was there negotiating the steel aluminum tariffs, number one, you know, we got to the facts pretty quickly. And then you need to obviously get to the details. And the details are challenging in any trade agreement. And and that that will be what's challenging people right now, obviously getting through issue by issue in a way that can hopefully get you to a more predictable situation. The president leaves people with the impression that these deals can be cut over the weekend. You're making it clear there's a lot of hard work that has to follow whatever agreement in principle might be reached. How how tough is it? Well, I mean, I mean, the USMCA, I'll call it that was was announced in 2018. It didn't get signed until 2020. I think that's a good example. I mean, if you take a really narrow slice when we were trying to negotiate the steel and aluminum tariffs, it took a year, you know, it took we got to the conclusions relatively quickly of where this should land. But it takes a while to get through the details. And and every trade agreement obviously has give and take. And so so we hopefully should expect that people will get to some sort of the nature of an agreement rapidly. But I think we also need to expect that there'll be some continuing volatility for any two parties to negotiate effectively. Trust is pretty critical, isn't it? I have to believe that you're going to honor the commitments that you make at the bargaining table. And you have to believe that I'm going to honor mine. That, of course, is how deals get done. I'm going to ask a deliberately provocative question. What if the party on the other side is a country with a president who keeps changing his mind with a habit of not telling the truth and clearly with little, if not no regard for the rules by which other people have agreed to abide. How do you negotiate with that country? Look, it's difficult and all of us want to get to a rules based system. I mean, a rules based system allows for predictability, allows for investment. So that's the goal we're trying to achieve. And I'm hearing lots of people say that, you know, if a deal can be abrogated, why bother? I mean, my answer is that you want to get to as best you can with as many partners as you can, whether it's with China, whether it's with other parts of the world. You want to get to some sort of situation where you understand what's in, what's out. And yes, it's more challenging with the United States right now. It certainly is something that we're going to have to deal with. I continue to believe that there's many, many people of good faith who are going to help us to work through that. And that will get to a more predictable situation. I don't discount your your question, but I think for those of us who want to find a predictable situation, we have to have faith that we will get there and push forward and push forward as hard as you can with an understanding that there's going to be mutual benefit. With with the opportunity we see. I made reference earlier today to the so-called taco trade, in part because it has worked out for investors so far. What if you're negotiating a trade deal? Is that something you need to keep in mind? Do you take Trump's threats seriously and cave perhaps quickly to the demands that the United States is making? Or do you wait and see and hope that circumstances force the president to, as it were. Check it out. So my view would be you need to take the the reality of the discussion seriously. You have to accept, I think, that the world constantly goes through changes. So so renegotiations are not illegitimate. I mean, you want to find a way to create certainty for a long period of time. And I don't think it's reasonable to hope. You know, if you're if you're leading a government, you need to actually work towards getting to a better outcome, accepting that the challenge is is real. Since taking office in January, President Trump has and I'm going through this exhaustive list, in part because I'm assuming that not everybody is familiar with what has happened to Canada. The president has levied tariffs on a wide range of Canadian imports cars, trucks, steel, aluminum, even oil. He talks openly about turning Canada into the 51st state, and he has suggested that the United States can should it want to annex Canada by economic force. Bill, what exactly do you think Trump wants from Canada? More, more, more what, though? You know, I wish I could answer that question, but my sense is more that's what he wants. My my expectation is that much of this is obviously posturing that we're going to be in a situation where we're going to look towards, you know, a renegotiation that will include, you know, more access to Canadians, dairy, that we will ensure that we stand up and play our part with natto, which Canada is doing. So that is the frame that certainly I start with. I think that's the frame that the Canadian negotiators start with. But I think the Canadian response, clearly Canadians are very frustrated by this. There's a real sense that we need to look for who are the other reliable partners that we have in the world. The U.S. is our largest trading partner by a big margin. China is our second largest trading partner. It's not a surprise that Prime Minister Carney has started to look towards how can we have a more stable and expansive trading relationship with China and with other countries. I'm very interested in the point about China, and I'll come back to it in a couple of minutes because I just want to pursue this. Dialogue that we're having about Canada's relationship with the United States. Prime Minister Carney has stated publicly that he doesn't consider the United States a reliable partner any longer. And he meant what he said. Now. I've given this some thought. If you think for a moment, any of you think for a moment about the long and productive history that these two countries have had, they've shared actually quite culturally, commercially, even militarily. To say that the United States is no longer a reliable partner is is a profound thing. What will the new normal for Canada U.S. relations be? Well, we're working towards making sure that we do have a reliable interchange between the Canada in the United States. I mean, that is obviously the goal. The current situation is very volatile. So I think what Prime Minister Carney is reacting to is this constant set of changes that are going on. And he's also let's be realistic. He's also a politician. Canadians are frustrated. So that frustration, frustration needs to be voiced. But I think you're seeing two things at the same time. Appropriately, you're seeing him voicing the very legitimate concerns that Canada has with the changing situation. And you're seeing him quietly behind the scenes work towards getting to back to normalcy to the best extent possible. So let's get back for a moment to negotiating strategy. Canadians obviously have no interest in becoming the 51st state. They've said so in poll after poll after poll. And of course, the prime minister has said the same thing, but it is arguably in Canada's best interests to restore as much tariff free trade with the United States as possible and also to remain inside the U.S. security envelope. So going back to what you were saying about Trump wanting more from Canada, what should Canada be prepared to give up in exchange for that? You know, I think what from our perspective in Canada, what we see is that the advantages to both countries are significant from trade. Obviously, our automotive sector is completely interlinked and doesn't work without free trade. It doesn't. We Canada has enormous resources that are important not only for Canada but for the United States, for the world. So I think it's getting to the situation where that is accepted and understood. I think the Trump administration is dealing with a set of issues that really don't relate to Canada. If you think about the immigration challenge and the, you know, the hollowing out of the United States. So those are not really related to Canada, but Canada's getting caught in that dialogue in a way that is, I think, unfortunate. So the goal really is to get through this time, to get to a new normal, Hopefully to the extent that there are tariffs that endure that were not there before, which is, I think, deeply problematic. But maybe one of the outcomes Canada would seek to be inside that tent. The United States doesn't have Canada over a barrel quite the way it had. Zelensky in Ukraine. But should Canada be thinking similarly? It is worth in the interest of that longer term relationship signing agreements that that effectively give America some kind of call on Canadian resources or perhaps Canadian freshwater. And you know something that Americans have long coveted? You know, I would I would argue that that should not be the goal for Canada. I think we we need to continue to be at the table to talk about the advantages that we have together. And changing the situation that's been advantageous for both countries is not something that we will do easily. Certainly any discussion around fundamental changes to, you know, natural resources agreements, I think is almost certainly off the table. Let's go back to what you were saying about China at the moment. Canada at least up until 2025. Canada sent about 75% of its exports to the United States. And only, you know, something in the single digits to China. It varies, but let's call it 5% for argument's sake. How much more of Canada's exports could be going to China? Well, I think the place you start with is the fact that there's actually been a bit of a pivot that's been going on. So what? What you've seen between 2019 and 2023 is 8.2% increase annualized in agriculture. What you've seen with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in Canada is that there's been significantly more oil that's going to China, significant recipient of Canadian oil. So if you look at March 20, 25, 353,000 barrels per day going to China and March 25 was actually the lowest amount going the United States in the last two years, about 3.1 million barrels. So there there is a bit of a pivot. I think realistically, though, what Canada's objective will be will be to expand trade opportunities around the world. I mean, Mark Carney this weekend to the G7 has invited Prime Minister Modi of India. He's invited the crown prince ambassador from Saudi Arabia. He's invited the the president of Mexico, Brazil, China, down from Mexico. There's a there's an agenda to be opening up trade and to find a way to have strong economic relationships around the world. Sure. And. Or at least welcoming India to the table makes a ton of sense. 1.4 billion people. It's has tremendous economic promise, but most other places in the world do not. Right. China is the world's second largest economy. And there's a reason perhaps, that Canada has been hasn't been doing more business with China. And that's because over the past several years, some concerns have arisen as to what the terms of trade and what the terms of commerce with China should be. In your mind, how do we balance the concerns over market access, over theft of intellectual property, over fairness, over things like dumping, with a desire to at the very least, I say we focus on the Canadian, by the way, sell more agricultural commodities and oil to China. Well, you know, I think what we what we hope is that we will find important opportunities in particular sectors, that we will mutually understand that there are places that are very difficult to trade. There will be each country will have some places where they don't want to go. If we can get to an agreement, an understanding of what those places are, it allows for better advantage in other places. So. So that's certainly the hope. You hear people like, you know, the premier of Saskatchewan in Canada talking about the possibility for specific agreements against the agricultural sector. That's one potential path to actually increase the trading relationship. But I think the broader agenda is how do we make sure that we pivot, how do we make sure that we have economic relationships that are not impacted on a day to day basis by politics? You know, engagement doesn't equal endorsement. So working together is something that you should try to achieve. And that's that's the goal of countries that are trying to expand a rules based trading system for the the betterment of all of us. As we've heard several times today, what the Chinese would really like is more access to American made for the most part, or at least American designed and Taiwanese made GPUs. Hmm. The. We're operating. And when I say we, I'm referring specifically to the United States, Canada, Western allies under Jake Sullivan's small yard high fence paradigm. Does that still make sense to you, or in exchange for more access to the Chinese market, should at the very least, Canada, which isn't much of a semi-conductor maker, think differently about those kinds of security concerns? You know, I think we need to be realistic about geopolitical issues and there will be security concerns. I think the Jake Sullivan idea, the small yard with a high fence, I mean, what you really want is to make that yard as small as reasonably possible, given the inevitable challenges and the fence as impermeable as possible. So those two things go arm in arm. That I think is much more a US-China issue than a canada-china issue, frankly. But as a member of NATO, Canada is going to be part of that that realistic fence. So how do we make sure that we have a strong relationship that allows us to expand trade? I think by restricting the things that cause us consternation. Now, one of the things that Canada would need in order to do more trade, at the very least in oil and energy in general is more pipeline capacity. You referred to the Trans Mountain pipeline. And you were instrumental in a deal that actually brought ownership of the Trans Mountain pipeline to the federal government in Canada. There are a number of options that the Prime Minister, Canadian premiers, and for that matter Canadian oil companies are considering in the effort to try and expand that capacity. You could expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, you could build a branch line off of Trans Mountain or perhaps build a new pipeline through northern British Columbia to another port on the Pacific. What's the most realistic option in your mind? I think the Canadian challenge with pipelines is not so dissimilar from other countries. I mean, pipelines by definition go through multiple territories. So getting permits, it's always a challenge. In Canada, we've got different provinces, which was the problem with Trans Mountain. We have indigenous groups with stakes to a lot of the land. So as you think about that, the north, south, the east west pipelines are particularly challenging. They go through a lot of land. The to the West Coast or to the north are going to by definition be a little easier. I think that what really the current government needs to do is think about what are the big projects. And it's not just pipelines, what are the big projects that can give confidence to the business community, to investors in Canada and in other countries that we can start actually getting big things done. And so that that is the challenge. You pick the whether it's the pipeline or the electricity grid, you pick the one that has the highest probable success outcome and you start pushing for that. And that's what I think the government's going to be doing.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why everyone from Musk to Wall Street is worried about U.S. debt payments
The Republicans' "big beautiful" budget package is uniting everyone from Elon Musk to Wall Street over an issue that experts say could pose a threat to the nation's long-term fiscal stability: The rising cost of servicing the U.S. government's growing mountain of debt. The U.S. spent $1.1 trillion in interest on its debt in 2024 — almost double the amount it was paying five years ago, according to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data. The nation now spends more on interest payments than it does on defense, data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows. Those costs could rise even more under the Republican tax and spending bill now being considered in the Senate, according to a June 5 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. The version of the tax bill passed by the House last month is projected to increase the federal deficit — the gap between what the federal government spends each year and what it collects in revenue — by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, the nonpartisan agency found. That would require the government to raise additional debt, resulting in additional interest payments of about $550 billion over the next decade, the CBO forecasts. By 2035, interest on the nation's debt could reach $1.8 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan think tank focused on fiscal issues. "The interest costs now are bigger than defense spending, which is an extraordinary," Chris Edwards, an expert on federal tax issues at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank, told CBS MoneyWatch. "The budget threat here is that all of these increasing federal interest costs will crowd out all the other priorities in the federal budget that the policymakers want to spend on." In other words, the federal government could struggle to support vital programs like Social Security as a larger share of its budget is eaten up by interest payments on the nation's swelling debt. Federal interest payments as a share of the nation's gross domestic product stood at 3% last year, according to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data. If current trends holds, that could rise to 4.1% of GDP by 2035, the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation estimates. This embedded content is not available in your region. !function(){"use strict"; 0!== e= t in r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if( d= Democrats have pointed to analyses showing the bill's tax cuts will benefit wealthier Americans far more than low- and middle-income workers while also adding to the national debt. "No single piece of legislation in my time here in Congress will do more to add to the national debt than this one," Rep. Brendan Boyle, a Democrat from Pennsylvania who voted against the legislation, said last month on the House floor. Many Republicans, however, point to the bill's proposed tax cuts as providing an avenue for economic growth. "We are going to celebrate a new golden age in America," House Speaker Mike Johnson said last month after the bill passed in the House. Concerns from Elon Musk, Wall Street The cost of paying for the nation's debt has drawn concern from many corners, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who earlier this month posted about it on social media as he voiced his objections to the GOP bill. "Congress is spending America into bankruptcy!" Musk posted on June 5, pointing to data showing that interest payments have risen from $416 billion in 2014 to more than $1 trillion in 2024. Moody's Ratings downgraded U.S. credit last month, citing among its reasons the mounting concerns about the nation's increasing debt load and interest payments. "Successive U.S. administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs," the credit rating agency said. "Over the next decade, we expect larger deficits as entitlement spending rises while government revenue remains broadly flat." Moody's added, "In turn, persistent, large fiscal deficits will drive the government's debt and interest burden higher." On June 7, the White House said in a memo that the GOP tax bill "significantly improves our nation's fiscal trajectory by including $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings," while President Trump's tax cuts will spur economic growth. Some economic forecasters project that Mr. Trump's tariffs will drag down U.S. growth. The nation's growth could slide to 1.6% in 2025 and 1.5% next year partly because of those import levies, a sharp reduction from the 2.8% growth recorded last year, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said last week. How did interest payments get so big? In recent years, interest payments on the federal debt have ballooned for two main reasons. First, a series of COVID-related spending bills provided $4.6 trillion to individuals and businesses to help them keep afloat during the pandemic, with much of that financed through new debt. Second, the Federal Reserve started hiking interest rates in March of 2022 to tame high inflation. But that also meant the Treasury Department needed to pay higher rates to bondholders, adding to the cost of servicing the nation's burgeoning debt. In 2020, the U.S. had about $27 trillion in outstanding debt, according to Treasury data. By 2024, that had jumped 32% to $35.5 trillion. Over that time, the Fed's benchmark interest rate rose from close to zero percent to a high of more than 5% in 2024. One reason the Republican budget bill is forecast to increase the deficit — and add to the nation's interest costs — is that it would extend President Trump's 2017 tax cuts, as well as add other breaks, such as eliminating taxes on worker tips and overtime pay. Altogether, those tax cuts will cost $3.75 trillion, the CBO estimates. The revenue loss would be partially offset by nearly $1.3 trillion in reduced federal spending elsewhere, namely through Medicaid and food assistance. But that still leaves a significant funding gap. In the meantime, the U.S. could face a financial strain in servicing its debt, especially in the face of an economic slowdown, experts have warned. "The most dangerous scenario is that the giant size of our debt precipitates a U.S., and even global, economic recession and financial crisis," Cato's Edwards told CBS MoneyWatch. "We saw this 15 or so years ago in Greece and some other European countries. That sort of crisis could be coming to the United States at some point, but no financial expert knows exactly when that's going to be." An accused woman skips her pedicure, kills her ex-husband Watch California Gov. Gavin Newsom's full speech on federal response to Los Angeles protests LAPD chief speaks out about deployment of military forces to anti-ICE protests
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
After LA, Trump hard launches new First Amendment: Only MAGA can protest
President Donald Trump and his band of faux-macho nogoodniks keep poking the city of Los Angeles, hoping it will squeal and create the kind of violent theater that gives right-wing media its life force. First they sent in the National Guard to address predominantly peaceful anti-ICE protests, but the sprawling city failed to adequately burn. Now they're sending in U.S. Marines to get the job done. It's an intentional, dangerous and wholly unnecessary provocation. And based on how Trump and other Republicans have reacted to the ongoing protests, we should all be clear on the administration's new rules for protesting in America. For those who engage in liberal activities like reading and 'seeing things with your own eyes and believing they're real,' it might seem odd that the man who praised Jan. 6 insurrectionists as "great patriots" and then pardoned them all has the gall to call LA protesters 'insurrectionists.' Technically, there's nothing about the California protests that would make them an insurrection, while everything about the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, an effort to overturn a free-and-fair election, made it an actual insurrection. But that kind of fact-based thinking is now illegal, and protesters in Los Angeles and elsewhere need to understand that the First Amendment only applies to things Trump and Republicans want to hear. As border czar Tom Homan said on June 9 about the LA protesters: 'I said many times, you can protest. You get your First Amendment rights. But when you cross that line, you put hands on an ICE officer, or you destroy property or ICE says you impede law enforcement … that's a crime. And the Trump administration is not going to tolerate it.' Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Correct. Unless you're a pro-Trump protester. In which case, breaking into a federal building, beating the snot out of police officers and destroying property is patriotic and easily pardonable. Video of California protesters waving flags from Mexico and other countries really upset a number of Republicans who have apparently never been in Boston on St. Patrick's Day. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said: 'This is an American city, and to be able to have an American city where we have people literally flying Mexican flags and saying 'you cannot arrest us' cannot be allowed.' If those protesters were waving a good old-fashioned American flag, it would be an entirely different story. But in Trump's America, flag choice matters. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called out 'left-wing radicals carrying foreign flags.' Vice President JD Vance declared on social media: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' MIND THE FLAGS, PEOPLE! The rule seems pretty clear. Your First Amendment right only allows you to carry an American flag, unless you are a Trump supporter during an actual insurrection, in which case you can carry a Confederate flag, replace an American flag with a Trump flag or use an American flag on a pole to beat a police officer. Opinion: Three ways the Trump-Musk feud revealed the GOP's twisted hypocrisy In response to some LA protesters allegedly spitting on authorities, Trump declared on social media June 9: ' 'If they spit, we will hit.' This is a statement from the President of the United States concerning the catastrophic Gavin Newscum inspired Riots going on in Los Angeles. The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. These Patriots are told to accept this, it's just the way life runs. But not in the Trump Administration. IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' Some might respond to this by saying, 'But the Jan. 6 insurrectionists whom you pardoned en masse did a lot more than just spit. They brutally attacked police officers, physically injuring more than 140 of them.' To which Trump would probably say: 'Shut up. Your First Amendment rights are hereby revoked!' Or he might say what he actually said when he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters after he was inaugurated Jan. 20: 'These are people who actually love our country, so we thought a pardon would be appropriate.' Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. To clarify, the people who Trump thinks love this country, demonstrated by them loving him, are allowed to express that love by defacing a federal building they broke into and viciously assaulting police officers. People who Trump thinks don't love the country, demonstrated by them exercising their First Amendment right to protest things he doesn't want them to protest, will be beaten up for spitting. It's clear as mud, folks. Americans across the country should feel free to get out and protest, as long as it's for the right reasons and done in a way that aligns completely with the beliefs of Republicans and the Trump administration. Anything outside of that and they'll call in the National Guard. And the Marines. And, I guess, the flag police? Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: American flags only: GOP's three new rules for protests | Opinion
