Steelers legend Rocky Bleier names US President Donald Trump an 'honorary Steeler'
Steelers legend Rocky Bleier just named U.S. President Donald Trump an 'honorary Steeler'.
Steelers QB Mason Rudolph and special teams ace Miles Killebrew, along with Bleier, joined President Trump on stage at a recent rally in Pittsburgh.
Bleier, a four-time Super Bowl champion and inductee into the Steelers Hall of Honor, took the podium and made the announcement:
'Mr. President, on behalf of U.S. Steel and the people of Pittsburgh — more importantly, to all the Steeler fans here this evening — I have the honor of making you an honorary Pittsburgh Steeler and would like to present you with your jersey. With the No. 47, as the 47th President of the United States — a number that hangs in the Pro Football Hall of Fame — I'd like to present this to a Hall of Fame president.'
All three Steelers — past and present — then posed for a photo with President Trump.
For up-to-date Steelers coverage, follow us on X @TheSteelersWire and give our Facebook page a like.
This article originally appeared on Steelers Wire: Steelers legend names President Donald Trump an 'honorary Steeler'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
6 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Republican push for proof of citizenship to vote proves a tough sell in the states
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have made it a priority this year to require people to prove citizenship before they can register to vote. Turning that aspiration into reality has proved difficult. Trump's executive order directing a documentary, proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections has been blocked by a judge, while federal legislation to accomplish it doesn't appear to have the votes to pass in the Senate. At the same time, state-level efforts have found little success, even in places where Republicans control the legislature and governor's office. The most recent state effort to falter is in Texas, where a Senate bill failed to gain full legislative approval before lawmakers adjourned on Monday. The Texas bill was one of the nation's most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals because it would have applied not only to new registrants but also to the state's roughly 18.6 million registered voters. 'The bill authors failed spectacularly to explain how this bill would be implemented and how it would be able to be implemented without inconveniencing a ton of voters,' said Anthony Gutierrez, director of the voting rights group Common Cause Texas. Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and punishable as a felony, potentially leading to deportation, but Trump and his allies have pressed for a proof-of-citizenship mandate by arguing it would improve public confidence in elections. Before his win last year, Trump falsely claimed noncitizens might vote in large enough numbers to sway the outcome. Although noncitizen voting does occur, research and reviews of state cases has shown it to be rare and more often a mistake. Voting rights groups say the various proposals seeking to require proof-of-citizenship are overly burdensome and threaten to disenfranchise millions of Americans. Many do not have easy access to their birth certificates, have not gotten a U.S. passport or have a name that no longer matches the one on their birth certificate — such as women who changed their last name when they married. The number of states considering bills related to proof of citizenship for voting tripled from 2023 to this year, said Liz Avore, senior policy adviser with the Voting Rights Lab, an advocacy group that tracks election legislation in the states. That hasn't resulted in many new laws, at least so far. Republicans in Wyoming passed their own proof-of-citizenship legislation, but similar measures have stalled or failed in multiple GOP-led states, including Florida, Missouri, Texas and Utah. A proposal remains active in Ohio, although Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has said he doesn't want to sign any more bills that make it harder to vote. In Texas, the legislation swiftly passed the state Senate after it was introduced in March but never made it to a floor vote in the House. It was unclear why legislation that was such a priority for Senate Republicans – every one of them co-authored the bill -- ended up faltering. 'I just think people realized, as flawed as this playbook has been in other states, Texas didn't need to make this mistake,' said Rep. John Bucy, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House elections committee. Bucy pointed to specific concerns about married women who changed their last name. This surfaced in local elections earlier this year in New Hampshire, which passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement last year. Other states that previously sought to add such a requirement have faced lawsuits and complications when trying to implement it. In Arizona, a state audit found that problems with the way data was handled had affected the tracking and verification of residents' citizenship status. It came after officials had identified some 200,000 voters who were thought to have provided proof of their citizenship but had not. A proof-of-citizenship requirement was in effect for three years in Kansas before it was overturned by federal courts. The state's own expert estimated that almost all of the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote while it was in effect were U.S. citizens who otherwise had been eligible. In Missouri, legislation seeking to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement cleared a Senate committee but never came to a vote in the Republican-led chamber. Republican state Sen. Ben Brown had promoted the legislation as a follow-up to a constitutional amendment stating that only U.S. citizens can vote, which Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved last November. He said there were several factors that led to the bill not advancing this year. Due to the session's limited schedule, he chose to prioritize another elections bill banning foreign contributions in state ballot measure campaigns. 'Our legislative session ending mid-May means a lot of things die at the finish line because you simply run out of time,' Brown said, noting he also took time to research concerns raised by local election officials and plans to reintroduce the proof-of-citizenship bill next year. The Republican-controlled Legislature in Utah also prioritized other election changes, adding voter ID requirements and requiring people to opt in to receive their ballots in the mail. Before Gov. Spencer Cox signed the bill into law, Utah was the only Republican-controlled state that allowed all elections to be conducted by mail without a need to opt in. Under the Florida bill that has failed to advance, voter registration applications wouldn't be considered valid until state officials had verified citizenship, either by confirming a previous voting history, checking the applicant's status in state and federal databases, or verifying documents they provided. The bill would have required voters to prove their citizenship even when updating their registration to change their address or party affiliation. Its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, said it was meant to follow through on Trump's executive order: 'This bill fully answers the president's call,' she said. ___ Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Mead Gruver in Cheyenne, Wyoming; David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City; Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio; and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan, contributed to this report.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors bet on Trump tariff concessions as retaliation threats rattle markets
China shares rose while Europe and the U.S. slipped as investors bet—or at least hoped—that U.S. President Donald Trump would step back from his most recent aggressive tariff threats. S&P futures were off 0.4% while Hong Kong rose 1.5%. Are trade tensions rising or falling? Unable to answer that question, investors let markets slip in Europe and the U.S. on Tuesday morning, bumping China. U.S. President Donald Trump's recent doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs to 50% and the imposition of new limits on the sale of chip design software to China—as well as his claim that Beijing had 'totally violated' the terms of the U.S.-China tariff truce—did little to encourage investors. Nor did EU threats of retaliation against the metals tariffs, as well as China's veiled warning that it would 'continue to take resolute and forceful measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.' Still, investor sentiment that Trump's tariff threats are not as dire as they first appear and that his administration will end up backing off the toughest ones (aka the 'TACO' trade) seems to be cushioning the markets from further drops. 'Reports in Washington suggest US President Trump may talk directly with China's President Xi later this week (after several days of more heated rhetoric between the US and China over trade),' UBS chief economist Paul Donovan said in a Tuesday note. 'As Trump has been anxious for the call, and China has not, this may hint at more US retreats over trade taxes as a concession to bring China to the telephone.' European markets and U.S. futures were down slightly early Tuesday, with the Stoxx Euro 600 dropping 0.2% while S&P futures were off 0.4% before the opening bell. In Asia, markets in China rose: Shanghai rose 0.4% after Monday's holiday, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng jumped 1.5%. 'It's a difficult time to forecast right now given the relentless crossfire of trade headlines. But there's a growing sense that we're now on a turbulent but sustained path towards de-escalation,' wrote Deutsche Bank's global head of macro research Jim Reid. 'Even if the US administration remain hawkish on trade, we have already seen there are limits to that approach, particularly in the face of market turmoil and declining approval ratings for President Trump. Here's a snapshot of today's action prior to the opening bell in New York (6:15 a.m. ET): • The S&P 500 was up 0.4% Monday. The index is up 0.9% YTD.• S&P futures were trading down 0.5% this morning.• The Stoxx Europe 600 was down 0.2% in early trading.• Asia was mixed: Japan was off 0.1%. Hong Kong rose 1.5%. Shanghai was up 0.4%, and India's Nifty 50 was off 0.7%.• Bitcoin was sitting up at $105,300 this morning. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
San Francisco Chronicle
15 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Analysis: An outline is emerging of the US offer to Iran in their high-stakes nuclear negotiations
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The outline of the U.S. offer to Iran in their high-stakes negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program is starting to become clearer — but whether any deal is on the horizon remains as cloudy as ever. Reaching a deal is one of the several diplomatic priorities being juggled by U.S. President Donald Trump and his trusted friend and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. An accord could see the United States lift some of its crushing economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for it drastically limiting or ending its enrichment of uranium. But a failure to get a deal could see tensions further spike in a Middle East on edge over the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. Iran's economy, long ailing, could enter a free fall that could worsen the simmering unrest at home. Israel or the U.S. might carry out long-threatened airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities. And Tehran may decide to fully end its cooperation with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog and rush toward a bomb. That makes piecing together the U.S. offer that much more important as the Iranians weigh their response after five rounds of negotiations in Muscat, Oman, and Rome. Possible deal details emerge A report by the news website Axios outlined details of the American proposal, the details of which a U.S. official separately confirmed, include a possible nuclear consortium enriching uranium for Iran and surrounding nations. Whether Iran would have to entirely give up its enrichment program remains unclear, as Axios reported that Iran would be able to enrich uranium up to 3% purity for some time. Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, negotiated under then President Barack Obama, allowed Iran to enrich to 3.67% — enough to fuel a nuclear power plant but far below the threshold of 90% needed for weapons-grade uranium. Iran now enriches up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels. U.S. officials all the way up to Trump repeatedly have said that Iran would have to give up enrichment entirely. The English-language arm of Iranian state television broadcaster Press TV on Tuesday published an extended article including details from the Axios report. Iranian state television long has been controlled by hard-liners within the country's theocracy. Press TV extensively repeating those details suggests that either they are included in the American proposal or they could be elements within it welcomed by hard-liners within the government. Iranian media largely have avoided original reporting on the negotiations, without explanation. Iran's reaction The idea of a consortium enriching uranium for Iran and other nations in the Middle East also have come up in comments by other Iranian officials. Abolfazl Zohrehvand, a member of Iran's powerful parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, said that he understood that one of the American proposals included the full dismantlement of the country's nuclear program in a consortium-style deal. The Americans will "make a consortium with Saudi Arabia, the (United Arab) Emirates and Qatar ... on an island to keep it under U.S. control,' Zohrehvand told the Iranian news website Entekhab. 'Iran could have a certain amount of stake in the consortium, but enrichment would not take place in Iran.' Zohrehvand didn't elaborate on which 'island" would host the site. However, the Persian Gulf has multiple islands. The UAE already has a nuclear power plant, while Saudi Arabia is pursuing its own program. Qatar has said that it's exploring small nuclear reactors. A consortium could allow low-enriched uranium to be supplied to all those countries, while lowering the risk of proliferation by having countries run their own centrifuges. While a consortium deal has been discussed in the past, it has fallen through previously. Now, however, the Gulf Arab states largely have reached a detente with Iran after years of tensions following Trump unilaterally withdrawing the U.S. in 2018 from Tehran's nuclear deal with world powers. Meanwhile, Fereidoun Abbasi, a former head of the civilian Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, suggested on Iranian state television that one of Iran's disputed islands with the UAE could be a site for the project. Iran, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, seized three islands in the Persian Gulf in 1971 as British troops withdrew just before the formation of the Emirates, a federation of seven sheikhdoms home to Abu Dhabi and Dubai. 'What do we need the U.S. for?' Abbasi asked. "We have the know-how.' What happens next Iran likely will respond to the American offer in the coming days, possibly through Oman, which has been mediating in the talks. There also could be a sixth round of negotiations between the countries, though a time and location for them have yet to be announced. This coming weekend is the Eid al-Adha holiday that marks the end of Islam's Hajj pilgrimage, meaning talks likely wouldn't happen until sometime next week at the earliest. But the pressure is on. Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium could allow it to build multiple nuclear weapons, should Tehran choose to pursue the bomb. Western nations may pursue a censure of Iran at the Board of Governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency — which could see them ultimately invoke the so-called snapback of U.N. sanctions on the Islamic Republic. The authority to reestablish those sanctions by the complaint of any member of the original 2015 nuclear deal expires in October. 'There is still time for negotiating an agreement that reduces Iran's proliferation risk. But that time is short,' wrote Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. 'Given that Iran is sitting on the threshold of nuclear weapons and officials are openly debating the security value of a nuclear deterrent, any escalatory spiral could kill the negotiating process and increase the risk of conflict.' ___ Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, and Matthew Lee in Washington, contributed to this report. ___
