Moulton tackles culture war backlash, Dems' response to Trump at first 2025 district town hall
He said Democrats need to propose compromises to counter Republicans who will 'push a lot of anti-trans legislation,' adding: 'We need to make sure that we actually win these legislative debates in Washington for laws and the ability to act that actually target trans kids.'
Advertisement
Moulton's hour long event, which drew more than 300 attendees,
came days after Trump returned to the White House, implementing a number of sweeping changes ranging from trying to
'I don't know exactly why there hasn't been that same kind of organic reaction, millions of people, Democrats, descending on Washington, the way there was in 2016,' Moulton said. He added some leaders like Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries 'believe that that kind of strategy is, at the end of the day, not going to get us the wins that we need.'
But, he continued, 'I believe the single most important thing that Democrats can do is get our act together so we start winning again two years from now.'
Around a dozen protesters, organized by a local city councilor, held signs outside supporting transgender people in the freezing temperatures ahead of his event. That response was the latest in a months-long saga after Moulton, following Trump's win, told
Advertisement
'I have two little girls, I don't want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I'm supposed to be afraid to say that,' he continued.
Those comments drew immediate backlash from residents in his district and the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Moulton went on to defend his remarks,
In January, however, Moulton
Ahead of Moulton's town hall Tuesday, Kyle Davis, a first-term Salem city councilor, called for supporters of transgender people to protest the event. It wasn't the first time : In November, Davis helped organize another protest he said garnered more than 400 people and support from over a dozen LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.
'We certainly don't think that we can change Moulton's mind about the issue — he's doubled and tripled down,' Davis said ahead of the event. The goal, Davis said, was to 'display that this district does not agree with the transphobic remarks from him' and 'to make sure pro trans leaders considering a run against Moulton really take note of the large community of LGBTQ+ people and allies that are ready to rally behind a serious challenger.'
Advertisement
Moulton's remarks Tuesday did little to assuage those who came to protest his event.
'To see him be that dismissive was disheartening — I felt like he was telling the LGBTQ community, who has been fighting for our rights for centuries, how we should feel about things, and that he somehow knows more about this fight than people who have been fighting it all their lives,' said Melissa, who works with LGBTQ students at a local high school and asked to have their last name excluded.
In November, the chair of Salem's Democratic city committee
Moulton, who has served in Congress since 2015, did not face an opponent in either the 2024 Democratic primary or general election. In 2022, the congressman defeated a Republican in the general election with nearly 63 percent of the vote. He won 78 percent of the vote during his last primary challenge in 2020.
As Democrats evaluate their next steps, Moulton told the crowd on Tuesday he's looking to see his party do more listening and 'less preaching' and find leaders 'who have political courage.'
'We're being a little bit more calculated because we can't just oppose everything Trump does,' Moulton told reporters of Democrats' approach to Trump this time around. 'We want to be a little bit smarter, more strategic, about making sure we win the battles we absolutely need to win but also making sure we're setting up to win the election two years from now.'
Advertisement
But many residents who attended said they were more concerned about how Democrats were handling the present moment.
Brenda Sheridan, a Democrat from Swampscott, said she attended because she she felt compelled to 'do something and be part of something' in the wake of Trump's first week in office, which she said had left her 'terrified and furious.'
'I'm really concerned that there's a lawlessness happening ... The only people that can do anything about it are our elected representatives and they're not doing it, and they're saying, 'what can we do, we don't have the full control of Congress,'' Sheridan said. 'The Republicans would never have acquiesced in that way.'
Anjali Huynh can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
29 minutes ago
- Washington Post
‘Come and get me': Gavin Newsom has entered the meme war
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has found himself in the center of the internet's spotlight after squaring off with President Donald Trump on social media over the deployment of military troops to counter protesters in Los Angeles. While police deployed tear gas and shot at protesters in Los Angeles with rubber bullets on Monday, Newsom shared a screenshot on TikTok of a Washington Post headline reporting that California would sue Trump over the National Guard's presence, paired with a trending sound sampled from the movie 'Mean Girls. ' The video was captioned 'We will not stand while Donald Trump illegally federalizes the National Guard' and was liked more than 255,000 times.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Associated Press
30 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.
