EXCLUSIVE Trump's closest ally's chilling warning to the president about 'neocons'
Marjorie Taylor Greene sees a schism in the Republican party, and it's not between her and President Donald Trump, she told the Daily Mail in a sit-down interview, it's among 'neocons' and conservatives.
Referencing a Daily Mail article from last week on one of Greene's social media posts expressing discontent with the GOP on behalf of President Trump's 'base,' she argued that 'there's no daylight' between her and the president.
'I represent the base and when I'm frustrated and upset over the direction of things, you better be clear, the base is not happy,' she wrote.
The Georgia congresswoman clarified her long post was not about the president but 'typical Republican leadership' which, along with 'classic neocons' she accused of co-opting the MAGA movement away from Trump.
Neocons are generally Republicans who advocate for U.S. intervention in global affairs, like the wars of Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq and more.
'I'm not naming and names in particular, but everyone pretty much knows it's the same old, same old,' Greene said of the forces influencing the GOP. '[The] Classic neocon establishment in Washington. It's just an existence. It's a conglomerate.'
An obvious example of this, she argued, is the Senate 's discontent with Ed Martin, Trump's nominee for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
The Trump nominee is currently opposed by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and because of that Martin's bid may not pass. Greene, therefore, blames Tillis, among others, for obstructing Trump's agenda.
'We have problems in Congress,' she told the Daily Mail. '[Trump's] agenda is not being passed in Congress.'
'Look at the Senate. We've got, what is it? Four or five senators that are saying 'No Ed Martin,'' Greene shared. 'Susan Collins is one of them, and she's the Chair of Appropriations. Like these are powerful people that are refusing to pass the president's agenda.'
Americans 'didn't vote for Susan Collins or Tom Tillis' to be president, she said.
'So why would Senate Republicans hold that up?' Greene asked. 'It's the disconnect between typical Republican leadership and control and Washington, D.C., and all the muck that comes with it.'
With some of the neocons identified, the Georgian turned on some of her House colleagues, too.
Greene chairs the House's DOGE subcommittee and said skeptical that many Republicans will have the stomach to cut the waste, fraud and abuse uncovered by the group led by Trump appointee Elon Musk.
'His executive orders, DOGE cuts, rescissions, those are the easiest things,' the Republican said, noting how DOGE's work identifying wasteful programs is pointless work unless Congress passes legislation to codify the reforms.
Greene also pointed to the mountain of executive actions, 143 at this point, which she believes should be codified into law.
Driving the point home, the lawmaker brought up her effort to enshrine the name change of Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America.
Trump shows off a new Gulf of America hat at the White House
President Donald Trump, from right, speaks to reporters accompanied by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Burgum's wife Kathryn Burgum, aboard Air Force One where Trump signed a proclamation declaring February 9 Gulf of America Day
The project is so dear to the president's heart that a poster of the name change has hung in the Oval Office and he had hats made with the new phrase.
'He literally keeps the map next to his desk,' Greene told the Daily Mail.
Though with some Republicans reportedly upset over the measure, Greene dared any GOP lawmaker to jump out of line and 'stand with Mexico.'
Overall, the congresswoman also vehemently warned against those advocating for foreign wars and status-quo Washington procedure, a prevailing wind forcing the president's White House wayward.
'The Republican establishment wants to do this like a speed bump,' Greene warned while leaning forward in her seat. 'They know that President Trump can't run again.'
'They would love to continue just steaming ahead in their same path, and try to get over him like a speed bump and keep going,' the Georgia congresswoman continued.
'And my voice is important to not allow that to happen,' she added.
The Georgian has been a MAGA ally for a decade and wrote for conservative online outlets before becoming a member of Congress three days before January 6, 2021.
Greene boasts one of the largest social media followings for any member of Congress on X, with a combined 6.3 million, 1 million on Instagram and over 500,000 on Facebook.
When Daily Mail asked Greene why she thinks the 'base' is displeased, she immediately pointed to one thing, the same reason highlighted in her post from the week prior: war.
'Washington, DC, has an addiction to foreign wars,' Greene told the Daily Mail. 'President Trump is on record for decades being against foreign wars, saying that we need world peace.'
Then she congratulated the president on striking a peace deal with the Houthis in Yemen, which have been bombing ships in the Red Sea, a critical shipping route.
'This is exactly one of the reasons why I've always supported the President is because he has worked for peace and stopping foreign wars,' the lawmaker said.
'However, we had been seeing people here in Washington pushing him towards one a war with Iran, which we do not want. American people don't want that. No one's no one's interested in a war Iran,' Greene stated.
She then dove into the Ukraine war, the U.S.'s war in Afghanistan and other conflicts that the country lost so much in, which she blamed on 'neocons.'
'That's why I said, if you're losing me and I'm angry at you and I'm frustrated ... You're losing the base.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
Exclusive: Democrats want new leaders, focus on pocketbook issues, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - Democrats want new leaders for their party, which many feel isn't focusing enough on economic issues and is over-emphasizing issues like transgender rights and electric vehicles, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The poll identified a deep disconnect between what Democrats say their priorities are and the issues they believe party leaders care about most ahead of next year's midterm elections, when they hope to crack Republican control of Congress. They see their elected officials as not focused on helping families make ends meet and reducing corporate influence. Democrat Kamala Harris' November loss to Republican Donald Trump has left the party rudderless and sparked a round of soul-searching about the path forward. The poll shows that party leaders have work to do in recruiting candidates for Congress in 2026 -- and for the White House in 2028. Some 62% of self-identified Democrats in the poll agreed with a statement that "the leadership of the Democratic Party should be replaced with new people." Only 24% disagreed and the rest said they weren't sure or didn't answer. Just 30% of Republicans polled said they thought their party leadership should be replaced. Democrats' dissatisfaction is also playing out in leadership changes, including this week's resignation of Randi Weingarten, the influential president of the American Federation of Teachers, from the Democratic National Committee -- which followed the ouster of progressive activist David Hogg. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,258 people nationwide and online June 11 through 16, including 1,293 Democrats. It had a margin of error of about 3 percentage points for Democrats. It found that Democrats want the party to focus on their day-to-day needs and want wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, agrees. "People don't trust us, they don't think we have their backs on issues that are core to them, which are these kitchen table issues," Newsom said on his podcast in April. Democratic strategists who reviewed the poll's findings said they send a clear message. "Voters are very impatient right now," said Mark Riddle, who heads Future Majority, a Democratic research firm. "They want elected officials at all levels to address the cost of living, kitchen-table issues and affordability." The poll found a gap between what voters say they care about and what they think the party's leaders prioritize. It was particularly wide on the issue of reducing corporate spending in political campaigns, where 73% of Democrats said they viewed putting limits on contributions to political groups like Super PACs a priority, but only 58% believed party leaders prioritize that. That issue matters to Sam Boland, 29, a Democrat in Minneapolis, who views Super PAC money as a way to 'legally bribe' candidates. 'Politicians want to keep their jobs and are afraid of the impact that publicly funded elections might have,' Boland said. Along that line, 86% of Democrats said changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority, more than the 72% of those surveyed think party leaders make it a top concern. The Republican-controlled Congress is currently pushing forward with Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill that would provide greater benefits to the wealthy than working-class Americans. Anthony Rentsch, 29, of Baltimore, said he believes Democratic leaders are afraid to embrace more progressive policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy. 'A lot of Trump's success has been with populist messages, and I think there's similar populist message Democrats can have,' Rentsch said. Democrats' own priorities appeared more in line with party leaders on abortion rights - which 77% cited as a priority. Dissatisfaction over the party's priorities on several economic policies was stronger among younger Democrats like Boland and Rentsch. For example, only 55% of Democrats aged 18-39 thought the party prioritized paid family leave that would allow workers to care for sick family members and bond with a new baby, but 73% said it was a priority for them. Among older Democrats, the same share - 68% - that said the issue was a priority for them said it was a priority for party leaders. Rentsch said that criticizing Trump over his conduct won't be enough to win over skeptical voters. 'That can't be it,' Rentsch said. 'It has to be owning those issues that have an impact on their economic well-being and their physical and mental well-being.' Democratic respondents said the party should be doing more to promote affordable childcare, reduce the price of prescription drugs, make health insurance more readily available and support mass transit. They view party leaders as less passionate about those issues than they are, the poll found. Even so, some Democrats argue the party also needs to stand toe-to-toe with Trump. 'They gotta get mean,' said Dave Silvester, 37, of Phoenix. Other Democrats said the party sometimes over-emphasizes issues that they view as less critical such as transgender rights. Just 17% of Democrats said allowing transgender people to compete in women and girls' sports should be a priority, but 28% of Democrats think party leaders see it as such. Benjamin Villagomez, 33, of Austin, Texas said that while trans rights are important, the issue too easily lends itself to Republican attacks. 'There are more important things to be moving the needle on,' said Villagomez, who is trans. 'There are more pressing issues, things that actually matter to people's livelihoods.' Democratic strategists say that if Trump's trade and tax policies lead to higher prices and an increased budget deficit, the party needs to be ready to take full advantage in next year's elections, which will decide control of Congress. 'This recent polling data indicates Democrats have room for improvement on criticizing Trump on the economy and making it clear to voters that Democrats are the ones standing up for working people,' said Ben Tulchin, who served as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' pollster for his two presidential campaigns. The party needs to get beyond portraying itself 'as the lesser of two evils," Boland, the Minneapolis Democrat, said. 'It needs to transform itself into a party that everyday people can get excited about,' he said. 'That requires a changing of the guard.'
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Transgender rights advocates gird for more fights after US Supreme Court loss
WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for adolescents, but legal experts said the ruling was narrower than it could have been and left open the door for challenges to the rising number of government restrictions aimed at transgender people. The court decided that Tennessee's Republican-backed law, which prohibits medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for people under age 18 experiencing gender dysphoria, did not violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection, as challengers to the measure had argued. The court's six conservative justices powered the ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, with its three liberal members dissenting. Transgender rights advocates called the decision a major setback while the law's backers welcomed the Supreme Court's endorsement and urged other states to adopt similar restrictions. Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person's gender identity and sex assigned at birth. The ruling rejected the assertion made by the law's challengers that the measure was a form of discrimination - based on sex or transgender status - that should trigger tougher judicial review and make it harder to defend in court under 14th Amendment protections. Instead, the ruling concluded that the ban classified people based on age and medical diagnosis, and the court applied what is called a rational-basis review, a deferential analysis that merely requires a rational connection between a law and a legitimate state interest. Application of rational basis review by courts generally would make it easier to defend a broader array of measures curbing transgender rights, from bathroom use to sports participation. But Wednesday's ruling did not foreclose the possibility of courts in the future applying tougher scrutiny and finding unlawful discrimination in certain measures targeting transgender people. Karen Loewy, a lawyer with the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal, called the ruling heartbreaking for transgender youths and their families but saw some hope. "I think the court here went out of its way to confine what it was doing here to a restriction on care for minors," Loewy said, adding that it "left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on healthcare and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people." The court concluded that Tennessee did not create a sex-based category or specifically draw a line between transgender people and others, said Georgetown University law professor Paul Smith, who has argued many cases at the Supreme Court including a landmark gay rights victory in 2003. "Other statutes may not be viewed the same," Smith said. Roberts wrote that the "fierce scientific and policy debates" concerning the medical treatments at issue justified the court's deferential review of Tennessee's ban. Roberts added that questions about these treatments should be left "to the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a written dissent disagreed with that view. Judicial scrutiny, Sotomayor said, "has long played an essential role in guarding against legislative efforts to impose upon individuals the state's views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act." The ban's proponents welcomed the ruling and the court's reasoning. "Voters, through their elected representatives, should have the power to decide what they believe on serious issues like this one," said Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, a Republican who signed the ban into law. Lee added that the measure protects young people from "irreversible, life-altering medical decisions." "This ruling sends a strong message to the country that states have a clear right and path forward to protect children from irreversible body mutilation," added Republican state legislator Jack Johnson, one of the lead sponsors of the Tennessee measure. The issue of transgender rights is a flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars. Tennessee's law is one of 25 such policies, opens new tab enacted by conservative state lawmakers around the United States, and various states have adopted other restrictions on transgender people. Donald Trump in particular has taken a hard line against transgender rights since returning to the presidency in January. Tennessee's law, passed in 2023, aims to encourage minors to "appreciate their sex" by prohibiting healthcare workers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to help them live as "a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." In litigation brought by plaintiffs including transgender individuals and former President Joe Biden's administration, a federal judge blocked the law as likely violating the 14th Amendment. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the judge's decision. Lawyers for the challengers noted that the Supreme Court did not go as far as the 6th Circuit to decline to recognize transgender people as a class of people whose status requires courts to apply tougher judicial review to laws targeting them. The Supreme Court left that question unresolved. Future legal challenges may hinge on whether a law draws a line between transgender people and others, Smith said. "If a state refused to hire transgender people or excluded them from juries, for example, that might well lead the court to apply heightened scrutiny under a sex discrimination theory or under the theory that such a line itself warrants heightened scrutiny," Smith said. "Targeting transgender people out of animus, as other more-recent restrictions have done, still violates equal protection," said Pratik Shah, an attorney who also helped represent the plaintiffs. However, three conservative justices who wrote or joined opinions concurring in Wednesday's outcome - Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - agreed with the 6th Circuit that laws based on transgender status do not merit tougher legal scrutiny like laws that divide people based on race or sex. Such a ruling "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion," Barrett wrote. Though some transgender advocates had expressed concern that a ruling favoring Tennessee could bolster restrictions on transgender adults as well, Jennifer Levi of the LGBT rights legal group GLAD Law said Wednesday's decision was explicitly limited to care for minors and that challenges to restrictions on adults remain viable under existing precedent. The Supreme Court also did not rule on a separate argument made by the plaintiffs that laws like Tennessee's violate the right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children. Competent adults could similarly claim a right to make medical decisions about their own bodies, Smith said. In a previous major case involving transgender rights, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a landmark federal law forbidding workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, made history in the case in December as the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. Strangio emphasized the narrowness of Wednesday's ruling, but acknowledged its practical impact. "Of course the most immediate effect is on our clients, other young transgender people in Tennessee and across the country who need medical care that the government has stepped in to ban," Strangio said. "And for them we are devastated."
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
ICE raids and their uncertainty scare off workers and baffle businesses
Farmers, cattle ranchers and hotel and restaurant managers breathed a sigh of relief last week when President Donald Trump ordered a pause to immigration raids that were disrupting those industries and scaring foreign-born workers off the job. 'There was finally a sense of calm,'' said Rebecca Shi, CEO of the American Business Immigration Coalition. That respite didn't last long. On Wednesday, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin declared, 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine (immigration enforcement) efforts. Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.'' The flipflop baffled businesses trying to figure out the government's actual policy, and Shi says now 'there's fear and worry once more.' 'That's not a way to run business when your employees are at this level of stress and trauma," she said. Trump campaigned on a promise to deport millions of immigrants working in the United States illegally — an issue that has long fired up his GOP base. The crackdown intensified a few weeks ago when Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, gave the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement a quota of 3,000 arrests a day, up from 650 a day in the first five months of Trump's second term. Suddenly, ICE seemed to be everywhere. 'We saw ICE agents on farms, pointing assault rifles at cows, and removing half the workforce,'' said Shi, whose coalition represents 1,700 employers and supports increased legal immigration. One ICE raid left a New Mexico dairy with just 20 workers, down from 55. 'You can't turn off cows,'' said Beverly Idsinga, the executive director of the Dairy Producers of New Mexico. 'They need to be milked twice a day, fed twice a day.'' Claudio Gonzalez, a chef at Izakaya Gazen in Los Angeles' Little Tokyo district, said many of his Hispanic workers — whether they're in the country legally or not — have been calling out of work recently due to fears that they will be targeted by ICE. His restaurant is a few blocks away from a collection of federal buildings, including an ICE detention center. 'They sometimes are too scared to work their shift,' Gonzalez said. 'They kind of feel like it's based on skin color.' In some places, the problem isn't ICE but rumors of ICE. At cherry-harvesting time in Washington state, many foreign-born workers are staying away from the orchards after hearing reports of impending immigration raids. One operation that usually employs 150 pickers is down to 20. Never mind that there hasn't actually been any sign of ICE in the orchards. 'We've not heard of any real raids,'' said Jon Folden, orchard manager for the farm cooperative Blue Bird in Washington's Wenatchee River Valley. 'We've heard a lot of rumors.'' Jennie Murray, CEO of the advocacy group National Immigration Forum, said some immigrant parents worry that their workplaces will be raided and they'll be hauled off by ICE while their kids are in school. They ask themselves, she said: 'Do I show up and then my second-grader gets off the school bus and doesn't have a parent to raise them? Maybe I shouldn't show up for work.'' The horror stories were conveyed to Trump, members of his administration and lawmakers in Congress by business advocacy and immigration reform groups like Shi's coalition. Last Thursday, the president posted on his Truth Social platform that 'Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace.' It was another case of Trump's political agenda slamming smack into economic reality. With U.S. unemployment low at 4.2%, many businesses are desperate for workers, and immigration provides them. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, foreign-born workers made up less than 19% of employed workers in the United States in 2023. But they accounted for nearly 24% of jobs preparing and serving food and 38% of jobs in farming, fishing and forestry. 'It really is clear to me that the people pushing for these raids that target farms and feed yards and dairies have no idea how farms operate,' Matt Teagarden, CEO of the Kansas Livestock Association, said Tuesday during a virtual press conference. Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, estimated in January that undocumented workers account for 13% of U.S. farm jobs and 7% of jobs in hospitality businesses such as hotels, restaurants and bars. The Pew Research Center found last year that 75% of U.S. registered voters — including 59% of Trump supporters — agreed that undocumented immigrants mostly fill jobs that American citizens don't want. And an influx of immigrants in 2022 and 2023 allowed the United States to overcome an outbreak of inflation without tipping into recession. In the past, economists estimated that America's employers could add no more than 100,000 jobs a month without overheating the economy and igniting inflation. But economists Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson of the Brookings Institution calculated that because of the immigrant arrivals, monthly job growth could reach 160,000 to 200,000 without exerting upward pressure on prices. Now Trump's deportation plans — and the uncertainty around them — are weighing on businesses and the economy. 'The reality is, a significant portion of our industry relies on immigrant labor — skilled, hardworking people who've been part of our workforce for years. When there are sudden crackdowns or raids, it slows timelines, drives up costs, and makes it harder to plan ahead,' says Patrick Murphy, chief investment officer at the Florida building firm Coastal Construction and a former Democratic member of Congress. ' We're not sure from one month to the next what the rules are going to be or how they'll be enforced. That uncertainty makes it really hard to operate a forward-looking business.' Adds Douglas Holtz Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now president of the conservative American Action Forum think tank: 'ICE had detained people who are here lawfully and so now lawful immigrants are afraid to go to work ... All of this goes against other economic objectives the administration might have. The immigration policy and the economic policy are not lining up at all.'' ____ AP Staff Writers Jaime Ding in Los Angeles; Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas; Lisa Mascaro and Chris Megerian in Washington; Mae Anderson and Matt Sedensky in New York, and Associated Press/Report for America journalist Jack Brook in New Orleans contributed to this report.
