Steve Bannon Rebukes 'Traitorous' Republicans
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon issued a sharp rebuke Thursday against Republican lawmakers backing the Dignity Act, an updated bill proposing a pathway to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants.
"Message to [Republican Representative Maria Elvira] Salazar and other traitorous Republicans: MASS DEPORTATIONS NOW; AMNESTY NEVER," Bannon, who served as the CEO of Trump's 2016 campaign and remains a key figure within the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, wrote on Gettr on Thursday morning.
Bannon told Newsweek via phone on Thursday that the legislation has "zero chance" of going anywhere, adding that Salazar has "been pushing amnesty since she got to Congress."
Why It Matters
Nine Republican House lawmakers on Tuesday signed on to the reintroduction of an immigration-related bill called the Dignity Act that legislative sponsors say provides an "updated compromise" addressing legal status and protections for undocumented immigrants, border security, asylum reform, and visa reform.
What to Know
The Dignity Act, introduced in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, has drawn both bipartisan support and fierce criticism from the Republican Party's hardline wing.
The proposed legislation, co-led by Salazar of Florida and Democrat Veronica Escobar of Texas, would grant legal status and protections to undocumented immigrants, overhaul the asylum process, and create a regulated pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and others residing in the U.S. without legal authorization.
Backers have called it "the most impactful immigration reform in a generation."
Salazar told reporters on Wednesday in Washington that the bill does not provide amnesty, nor does it provide a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Chief Strategist to the President Steve Bannon speaks during the Semafor World Economy Summit 2025 at Conrad Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Chief Strategist to the President Steve Bannon speaks during the Semafor World Economy Summit 2025 at Conrad Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.Bannon told Newsweek via phone on Thursday that the legislation has "zero chance" of going anywhere, adding that Salazar has "been pushing amnesty since she got to Congress."
"She calls it a different thing, always has a different spin on amnesty," Bannon said. "Right now, people, the only thing they're interested in is mass deportations. They wanna see the deportations kick up."
Support for the bill among Republicans has included Representatives Mario Rafael Diaz-Balart (Florida), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania), Mike Lawler (New York), Dan Newhouse (Washington), David Valadao (California), Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Gabe Evans (Colorado), Marlin Stutzman (Indiana), Don Bacon (Nebraska), and Young Kim (California).
The measure is also supported by 11 Democrats.
Part of the legislation included allowing undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. since prior to 2021 to apply for up to seven years of legal status with work authorization, provided that they pay restitution and check in regularly with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
"Don't get me wrong, the reason that we have the situation that we have with 10 or 20 million coming in during [President Joe] Biden's term...is because of RINO [Republicans In Name Only] Republicans that have wanted and teased amnesty to attract people. The whole DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] fight and everything about amnesty attracts more people coming here 'cause they figure if they come here, they're eventually going to get a path to citizenship."
This issue is "exactly" what has galvanized a stronger conservative of minorities, including Hispanics and African Americans, to vote more heavily for Trump in 2024, Bannon added.
"[They are] finally coming our way and voting for us exactly on this issue, that there's not going to be any path to citizenship for anyone coming here illegally," he said. "People know that's what's driving down wages and making the schools intolerable, and destroying health care and deferring healthcare. It's a political winner.
"But Salazar and people like her, her co-sponsors are always going to continue to bring her fantasy, and that just attracts more people to the United States."
The 22-page bill summary presents myriad options for immigration reform, including the following major revisions:
Granting legal status and protections to undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S.
Reforming the asylum screening process to provide an opportunity for review and access to counsel.
Creating new regional processing centers so migrants do not have to make the "perilous journey" to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum.
Investing in border security and modernizing land ports of entry.
Mandating accountability for ICE.
Providing a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers.
The bill also alludes to the "recent riots in Los Angeles," a line that has drawn consternation across conservative circles.
Bannon's criticism reflects a wider rift within the party over immigration policy. The Dignity Act stands in contrast to President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB)," which recently increased funding for enforcement and eliminated bond hearings for undocumented immigrants facing deportation.
That legislation does not include a pathway to legal status or citizenship, focusing instead on deportation and stricter asylum rules.
With the Dignity Act facing opposition from some within the party and advocacy from others citing economic needs and border reforms, intraparty divisions remain front and center as the debate over immigration continues.
What People Are Saying
Representative Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida on NBC's Meet the Press on Wednesday: "The border is secured, the BBB assures $150 billion for border security on the southern border. Now is the time to have a national conversation as to what we're going to do with those people who have been here over five years. They are needed in the economy and don't have a criminal record. Dignity is the best solution; it's not a path to citizenship, it's not amnesty. It lets them stay, work and pay taxes."
Representative Veronica Escobar, in a statement earlier this week: "I have seen firsthand the devastating consequences of our broken immigration system, and as a member of Congress, I take seriously my obligation to propose a solution. Realistic, common-sense compromise is achievable, and is especially important given the urgency of this moment. I consider the Dignity Act of 2025 a critical first step to overhauling this broken system."
Immigration attorney Rosanna Berardi told Newsweek on Tuesday: "Without congressional action to roll back many of the core immigration elements of H.R. 1—especially the funding and restrictions around detention, deportations, and parole—there's really no practical space for the Dignity Act's approach," Berardi said. "However, I do think this framework could help create bipartisan conversations focused on creating easier work-visa access and temporary status for migrant workers in industries like agriculture, hospitality, health care and manufacturing.
Azoria CEO James Fishback on X: "No, Maria—the LA riots are a reason to *triple down* on deportations. MAGA is not gonna let Country Club Republicans give amnesty to illegals because they don't want to pay Americans a real wage to trim the Bermuda on hole nine. Also, it's disgraceful to call it the 'Dignity Act' when it disgraces the dignity of every American who pays taxes and follows the law—only to watch their job handed to one of Salazar's new 'constituents.'"
What Happens Next
Trump's bill, signed into law last weekend, drastically increases funding for immigration enforcement efforts, likely leading to more detentions and deportations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump acknowledged on July 19 he's unlikely to satisfy the clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein. Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media. 'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!' More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein. Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. "No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8. On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. 'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.' 'But we want all the files,' Massie added. It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?' Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Will the 2028 Democratic nominee be ‘none of the above'?
Did you hear the one where former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028? Neither have I. Nor have any Democrats I speak with who concern themselves with real-world politics. In a recent poll from a company called Echelon Insights — which describes itself as 'erasing old industry lines that separate the process of conducting research from the tools to act on it' — Harris was leading the Democratic field with 26 percent of the primary vote, followed by Buttigieg at 11 percent, Newsom at 10 percent, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) at 7 percent and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) at 6 percent. I have spoken with numerous Democrats in or around the business of politics over the last few months. Not one believes that Harris will — or should be — the nominee. Similarly, none believe the other four names topping the poll will be the standard-bearer come November 2028. As has been stated many times in the past, a good lawyer can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The same holds true for polling. Depending on where you poll and how you shade the questions, a poll can bolster the views and desires of one partisan entity over the other, be they Democrats or Republicans. As for a recent glaring example of such polling flaws — purposeful or innocent — look no further than the truly laughable final Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa Poll of the 2024 election season conducted by Selzer and Co. In a state Trump was heavily favored to win, the jaw-dropping poll showed Harris leading Trump 47 percent to 44 percent. Of course, Trump went on to crush Harris in Iowa by 13 points, meaning the poll was a whopping 16 points off. 'How,' curious minds wondered, 'could a legitimate poll be that far off?' Some, including Trump himself, openly speculated whether it had been a tactic to suppress the Republican vote in the state. Trump was rightfully so bothered by the massive and mysterious failure of that poll that he decided to sue pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm, the Des Moines Register newspaper and its parent company Gannett. Although the suit was later dropped, Selzer chose to retire from the polling business. All that is to say that more and more people in the business put little stock in any of these polls. Of course, at some point, some Democrat is going to emerge as the frontrunner and then the eventual nominee. After Trump's decisive victory in 2024, every Democrat I spoke with believed their party would learn from its mistakes and tone-deafness and move back toward the center — back toward once again listening to the voices of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. Not only has the party not done so, but it has doubled and tripled down on 'woke' and 'DEI' rhetoric while still loudly pushing its main 'policy' plank from 2024: 'We hate Trump.' Of course, the 'we hate Trump' strategy did nothing to address the 'bread and butter' issues upending the lives of working-class and disenfranchised Americans in 2024 and it is doing less for them now. And yet, 'rising voices' such as Reps. Ocasio-Cortez and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) still invoke that strategy incessantly in egocentric attempts at gaining attention. Here is a suggestion for Democratic-leaning polling companies. Why not poll the minority, poor and disenfranchised constituents in the districts represented by Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett? Why not ask which 'bread and butter' emergencies either is fixing by appearing on show after show proclaiming their hatred of Trump? How has the 'leadership' of Ocasio-Cortez and Crockett improved the real lives of those constituents? Most Americans want to see those 'bread and butter' issues fixed. They don't live in entrenched and elite bubbles of entitlement. They exist in an often brutally tough world, in which many still must choose which necessity they will have to go without that month. They don't care if you 'hate Trump' or not. They want to feed and protect their children. And yet Democratic leaders still refuse to wrest control back from the far-left wing of their party. Why? Are they truly that afraid and intimidated by what really does amount to a tiny percentage of their base? In the meantime, the 2028 Republican Party bench could not be stronger. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all on the list. And guess what? Just as in 2024, all are laser-focused on the 'bread and butter' issues that most affect the quality of life of working-class and disenfranchised Americans. So who will be the Democratic nominee in 2028? As the internal battle for control of that party goes on, my money is still on 'none of the above.'
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Congress approves public media and foreign aid cuts: What to know
Congress this week approved a bill that claws back about $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds, as Republicans look to begin locking in cuts pursued by his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The package includes about $8 billion in cuts for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign aid, as well as more than $1 billion in cuts to the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides some funding to NPR and PBS. Here are five things to know about the bill. NPR and PBS brace for cuts The bill yanks back more than $1 billion in advanced funding appropriated for CPB over fiscal years 2026 and 2027. Many Republicans say the cuts are long overdue, singling out NPR and PBS, for what they perceive as political bias. But some are concerned about how the cuts would impact smaller stations. In the previous fiscal year, NPR received upwards of $13 million from CPB, the corporation's grants and allocations data shows. More than $70 million went to PBS based in Arlington. About one percent of NPR's current operating budget comes directly from the federal government, compared to 15 percent for PBS, multiple outlets report. At the same time, however, fees from member stations, which rely on a larger share of CPB funding on average, make up about 30 percent of NPR's funding. PBS says it also receives annual programming dues from stations to carry national programming. About 35 percent of the annual funding for PBS News Hour, the organization said, comes from CPB and national programming funds it described as 'a combination of CPB appropriation funds and annual programming dues paid to PBS by stations re-allocated to programs like ours.' Public media faces fiscal 'cliff' in October Opponents of the cuts have already sounded alarm about the fiscal 'cliff' that some stations will face as a result of the latest legislation come October, the start of fiscal year 2026. 'It is a cliff,' Rep. Rosa Delauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told The Hill Thursday. 'They're already speaking about it, frightened to death, particularly in rural communities that they're not going to have access to important information or alerts about weather situations, information that they need to know, education for their kids, because they're not in communities where there are multiple sources of information.' In a statement responding to passage of the cuts on Friday, CPB president Patricia Harrison said 'many local public radio and television stations will be forced to shut down.' 'Cutting federal funding could also put Americans at risk of losing national and local emergency alerts that serve as a lifeline to many Americans in times of severe need,' Harrison also said. Senators on both sides of the aisle have raised similar concerns. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said at the Hill Nation Summit on Wednesday that the cuts could put rural radio stations in her home state out of business, calling them 'the lifeblood of these communities when it comes to emergency alerts.' Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), one of two Republicans in the upper chamber to vote against the bill, pointed to a recent earthquake in her home state. Seven-point-three [magnitude] earthquake off of Alaska and tsunami warnings. You know how I got this information? From public broadcasting,' she said on the Senate floor. Less than 5 percent of the nonprofit corporation's funding goes toward its operations, while more than 70 percent 'goes directly to local public media stations,' CPB states on its website. And almost half of its 'total 544 radio and TV grantees are considered rural.' However, many Republicans have downplayed the cuts. 'There's so many means for communications now that we didn't have in the 1960s. Everyone has it on their phone,' Rep. Mark Alford (R-Missouri) told The Hill this week. 'Everyone, pretty much, has a smartphone, even in rural districts that that I represent, there's all types of access for information that we didn't have in the 1960s' 'I don't think the American taxpayer should be funding journalism,' Alford, who is also a former television news anchor, also said, while arguing there's a 'liberal, progressive bent towards NPR and PBS.' Foreign aid The request initially sent by the White House called for $8.3 billion in cuts to USAID and other foreign aid. But the White House ended up agreeing to exempt the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which was established under former President George W. Bush in 2003 and totaled about $400 million, after those cuts became a critical point of contention for moderate GOP lawmakers. The administration said the bill targets items like migration and refugee assistance that 'could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors,' USAID efforts officials say have been used to 'fund radical gender and climate projects,' and development assistance they argued 'conflict with American values' and 'interfere with the sovereignty of other countries,' among other rescissions. Republicans in both chambers have overwhelmingly cheered the cuts. But a few have also voiced concerns about the proposal in recent weeks, sounding alarm over what they see as a lack of information about the accounts being targeted. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) specifically singled out a proposed $2.5 billion in cuts to the Development Assistance account. She noted in a statement that the account 'covers everything from basic education, to water and sanitation, to food security,' but said lawmakers still lacked key details as to how those programs would be affected. More cuts could be coming Republicans see the bill as a critical 'test run' for the party, as Trump administration officials have already indicated they aim to send multiple special requests to Congress to claw back more funding if the first package makes it through. White House budget chief Russell Vought said Thursday that another rescissions package is 'likely to come soon,' though he stopped short of offering specifics as to what programs could be on the chopping block. 'Have nothing to announce, but we've been talking about it, and there's certainly an enthusiasm, although,' Vought said. 'I spent a good hour with Senate Republicans, there is still a great enthusiasm for these rescissions bills, because Congress wants to be a part of voting for these cuts and making them permanent.' Hardline conservatives have ramped up calls in recent months for the president to use the rare 'rescissions' tool – which unlocks a process that Republicans can use to secure funding cuts with GOP-only votes – as the party looks to codify DOGE cuts amid legal challenges over the administration's efforts to reshape the federal government. Implications for Sept. 30 Fewer than 20 legislative days stand between Congress and a looming Sept. 30 deadline to prevent a government shutdown. Both chambers are running behind in marking up and pushing their annual funding bills across the floor — increasing the likelihood Congress will have to resort to a stopgap measure to keep the lights on and buy time for lawmakers to finish their funding work. Senate Democrats have already warned the passage of the recent rescissions package threatens already fragile bipartisan funding talks. And some Republicans are also eager to begin shifting more focus to crafting and approving new funding levels for fiscal 2026. Asked about the administration's plans to send Congress additional requests for cuts, Murkowski, a senior GOP appropriator, said, 'I do not think that should be our path.' 'It's not legislating. It's basically the White House saying this is what we want you to do. Take it or leave it,' she told reporters this week.
