Critics Spot The Same Red Flag In State Dept. Spox's Evasive Answer
During a press briefing, Bruce was asked whether U.S. foreign policy aligned with House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) claim that the West Bank — which he referred to as 'Judea and Samaria' — belongs to the Jewish people.
Bruce brushed off the comment, suggesting it was simply Johnson's 'opinion.'
But when pressed on whether the U.S. government shared Johnson's view, the former Fox News personality's answer sparked confusion.
'Well, I'm not going to speak about opinion of the government,' Bruce said.
She added: 'And if there's a policy regarding the status in any region of the world — but certainly in the Middle East — I would wait to hear it from Secretary Rubio and President Trump.'
Watch here:
Critics questioned Bruce's apparent unwillingness to speak on behalf of the government that she is paid to speak on behalf of:
Related...
Critics Mock Kristi Noem's 'Stupid' Nickname For New Migrant Jail
Jake Tapper Roasts Trump's War On Numbers With Taunting New Tagline
Trump Flips Out At Yet Another TV Star: 'No Talent, No Ratings, No Strength!!!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
‘Let's Be Blunt—This Is Bad': MSNBC Host On Trump's ‘Really Dangerous' Smithsonian Order
In the first months of his second term, President Trump has targeted what universities can teach, and now he wants to influence how the Smithsonian tells visitors about moments in American history. The Trump Administration sent a letter to The Smithsonian Institution on Tuesday ordering a "comprehensive internal review" of exhibits at the Smithsonian and its collection of museums, education centers, and the National Zoo. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism,' the letter says, informing the Smithsonian that the president wants to 'remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.' The letter gives the Smithsonian 120 days to replace "divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions." On MSNBC's Morning Joe Wednesday, co-host Jonathan Lemire said the Trump effort to control the Smithsonian's exhibits raises disturbing questions about the accuracy of how the nation's history--bad and good--is told. "I mean, let's be blunt: This is really bad and really, really dangerous," Lemire said. "A nation needs to know its history. It has to be honest about its history to learn from it, to honor it, and also to then grow and improve for the present and future. There's no way that rewriting a history to fit one president's vision is good for a nation's health or good for a nation's democracy." 'A sweeping revisiting of American history' Earlier this month, the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History removed references in an exhibit to Trump becoming the first American president to be impeached twice. The reference was later restored, but edited. The Smithsonian said in a statement Tuesday that its work 'is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history. We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents.' 'Now it seems that's just the first step to a sweeping revisiting of American history,' Lemire said. Museum content 'should not be reviewed, revised, or edited for political gain' "Museums cannot change content to suit a political whim or agenda," said Lisa Strong, a professor of art history at Georgetown University, in an interview with NPR. "The best way for museums to maintain the high public trust they already enjoy is by remaining independent. Museums are staffed by experts in their fields who interpret the collection to help educate the public about art, history, science and culture. Their content should not be reviewed, revised, or edited for political gain."
New York Times
a minute ago
- New York Times
Climate Change, Regulation and Health
To the Editor: In 'How Trump E.P.A. Is Giving Up Role of U.S. Protector' (front page, Aug. 4), about the recent E.P.A. reversal of its previous finding that climate change is endangering the American people, David Gelles and Maxine Joselow note the longstanding debate over the proper role of government in regulating dangers. Adam Smith, they remind us, argued that 'governments should play a limited role.' But a limited role in what? Smith contrasted the benefits of the emerging system of capitalism with the mercantilist system that it was soon to replace, but even he recognized that governments sometimes had to get involved. Regulations were warranted, he wrote in 'The Wealth of Nations,' when the 'natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical.' Smith was referring specifically to banking regulation, but his argument was not sui generis. He compared banking regulation to the requirements for firewalls, which had been mandated in London under the Fires Prevention Act of 1774, just two years before Smith wrote his classic work. Worsened wildfires are, of course, one of the many costly consequences of man-made climate change. Today, the liberty of fossil fuel companies is endangering the security of us all. Adam Smith would have seen the need to regulate them. Naomi OreskesCambridge, writer is a professor of the history of science and an affiliated professor of earth and planetary sciences at Harvard. She is also an author, with Erik M. Conway, of 'The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market.' To the Editor: Re 'E.P.A. to Retract Bedrock Finding on Climate Crisis' (front page, July 30): The Trump administration's proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is a threat to people's health across the country. The endangerment finding affirms, based on overwhelming scientific evidence, that emissions of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change while worsening air pollution and harming health. With this proposal, the E.P.A. is essentially turning its back on decades of scientific consensus and putting polluters ahead of the health of children, seniors and communities. As the American Lung Association hears frequently from nurses, physicians and patients experiencing them firsthand, climate change has profound effects on respiratory health, including heightened risks of asthma attacks, worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and premature death. Make no mistake: This decision will immediately affect the health of every American, especially those who are most vulnerable to air pollution, including children, older adults and pregnant women. We urge the E.P.A. not to move forward with this harmful action and to instead prioritize the health and well-being of all communities. Laura Kate BenderFairfax, writer is the vice president for nationwide advocacy and public policy at the American Lung Association. Hiding Unfavorable Jobs Data To the Editor: Re 'Trump Pick for Agency on Job Data Stirs Alarm' (Business, Aug. 13), about the selection of E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation: I was struck by this quote from Preston Caldwell, an economist, in the article: 'First impressions here, this guy has an extreme degree of partisan motivation, which affects how he interprets the facts. But I do not think he's fundamentally dishonest.' If President Trump and his appointments have shown anything, it is their blind loyalty and willingness to, if not lie outright, at least fudge at every opportunity. One of Mr. Antoni's first comments was that maybe these employment figures do not have to be published every month. If the figures were favorable, they would be published by this administration every day. Only unfavorable stats would go unpublished. Is hiding the facts a lie or a fudge? Does it matter as long as we no longer trust the government at all? Stephen T. SchreiberPrinceton, N.J. To the Editor: President Trump has named a new head for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I imagine the job application had a single question: How much is two plus two? The winning answer: Whatever you want it to be, Mr. President. Robert S. CarrollStaten Island
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
Why A New College Loan Rule Can't Show The Real Value Of Your Degree
A little-known provision in President Trump's recently signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act could reshape who gets to borrow for college — and which degrees survive. While headlines focus on $10.5 billion to shore up Pell Grants and a new Workforce Pell program, the law quietly bars federal loans for programs whose graduates don't meet minimum earnings thresholds. The bill, signed into law on July 3, prohibits college students from accessing federal student loans for enrolling in undergraduate, graduate, and graduate certificate programs that do not meet an earnings threshold. To qualify for loans, undergraduate programs must show that their graduates' median earnings exceed those of working adults aged 24-35 in the state with a high school diploma. Likewise, graduate degree and certificate programs must demonstrate that their graduates' median earnings are higher than those of bachelor's degree holders in the same state. Although it may seem like a small detail, the new accountability rule impacts almost every higher education institution, including for-profit schools. Nearly 6,000 institutions provide federal loans, and each year, 30% to 40% of undergraduates borrow from the federal government. This involves about 7 million students. Splitting credentials into those with perceived economic value and those without oversimplifies a more complex issue: many factors influence students' choices of college majors. There are advantages and disadvantages to consider. Potential Benefits On one hand, students should understand that some degrees may not provide a good return on investment. Traditionally, many have believed that attending college is essential to the American Dream, and that any degree will do. However, employment and labor market data show this isn't always the case. The new accountability requirements may act as a behavioral nudge that encourages students to avoid programs that don't meet their earning expectations. This could be good for students who might unwittingly enroll in a program without understanding the labor market implications of their choice. At the very least, the new earnings requirements hold colleges accountable for their claims about students' economic prospects after they graduate with degrees in hand. Potential Downsides However, there are disadvantages to simplifying complex earning differences into a binary distinction. Doing so masks key factors influencing earnings in various markets that students and their families need to understand to improve their chances of a positive return on investment. Five Factors Beyond the Threshold While the new requirement could help some students avoid programs with poor returns, it also reduces the value of a degree to a single number—median earnings. But the economic value of a degree depends on much more than a threshold. Here are five factors that can dramatically influence a graduate's earnings. There is a huge variation in earnings by major. Entry-level college graduates with Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Engineering majors, such as computer science and engineering, generally lead to higher salaries — often higher than $75,000 a year — while humanities and liberal arts degrees like English and psychology fall more in the $40,000-$50,000 range, according to Indeed. The difference between the lowest- and highest-paying majors— early childhood and petroleum engineering — is $3.4 million over a lifetime, according to an analysis by the Center for Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University. Earnings also vary by industry. People who start in finance or technology generally make more than those in education or social services. The same degree can lead to different wages depending on the industry. For example, a computer systems analyst in the aerospace industry earns a median yearly salary of $133,510, while the same role at a university earns $93,310, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Graduates attending our nation's most selective colleges tend to earn more. Ivy League schools provide a higher return on investment than less selective colleges over 10 years, according to CEW. However, selective schools also have both high- and low-paying majors. A graduate with a STEM degree from a regional college might earn more than a graduate with a liberal arts degree from a selective school. Some of the earnings differences are probably due to graduates from selective schools coming from high-income backgrounds. Still, students from low-income backgrounds who attend selective colleges are more likely to become high earners. Earnings from a degree can vary based on who you are. Black and Latine graduates tend to earn less than their white and Asian peers, even with the same degree, same GPA, and institutions with the same selectivity, according to the CEW. Women earn less than men in nearly every major. Graduates from high-income families earn more than their low-income peers, even with the same major. This could be associated with differences in access to social and professional networks. The geographic location where college graduates work can influence earnings. Those who work in major metropolitan areas and on the coasts typically earn more than those who work in rural areas to offset the cost of living. For example, starting salaries for engineering graduates in the mid-Atlantic region are estimated at around $80,000-$82,000, but that drops to $70,000-$74,000 for those starting in the Plains, according to an analysis by Bankrate. Choosing what to study in college is one of the biggest investments you'll ever make. To improve your chances of a strong return, you need to look beyond an earnings threshold. Consider how your major performs across industries, how selective your school is, the quality of its internships and networks, and what alumni — especially those who share your racial background and gender — are earning. The better you understand these factors before you commit, the more likely you are to graduate with a degree that truly pays off.
