Jim Jordan's 'In America' Rant Goes Very Wrong, Very Quickly
Jordan retweeted a message from the House Judiciary Committee ― which he chairs ― showing a Mexican flag at the scene of the chaotic protests in Los Angeles.
He followed that up with a message of his own:
Jordan's critics flagged him on X with two quick reminders: that the First Amendment allows people to fly whatever flag they want... and that Jordan hasn't highlighted other flags flown, such as Confederate flags, especially at events in support of President Donald Trump.
Trump supporters have also flown a number of flags that violate the U.S. Flag Code by including images of Trump and MAGA messages on them.
Many of those types of flags and more have been on display at Trump events and during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol carried out by Trump's supporters.
Jordan's critics fired back with some pointed reminders:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democratic-led states sue over Trump restrictions on crime victim grants
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -A group of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking to prevent the Trump administration from forcing them to cooperate with immigration enforcement activities in order to receive grant funding to support crime victims. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Rhode Island is the latest case to challenge efforts by Republican President Donald Trump's administration to impose immigration-related conditions on states' ability to receive federal funding. Monday's lawsuit by state attorneys general in 20 states and the District of Columbia takes aim at a condition the U.S. Department of Justice recently imposed on the ability of states to receive grants pursuant to the Victims of Crime Act, which Congress enacted in 1984 to bolster support for crime victims. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The department administers programs funded by fines and penalties assessed in federal criminal cases that allow states to receive grant funding to provide services for victims including medical care, counseling, shelter and compensation for lost wages. Attorneys general from states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island say those funds help about 10 million people annually. In 2025, nearly $1.4 billion in such funding is available, the lawsuit said. But under a new Trump administration policy, states can lose out on such funding if they decline to provide U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to facilities or honor all civil immigration enforcement requests, the lawsuit said. The conditions were imposed in keeping with a policy Attorney General Pam Bondi unveiled in February requiring the Justice Department to ensure that federal funds do not flow to so-called "sanctuary jurisdictions" that do not cooperate with ICE. The states' lawsuit argues that such conditions are unlawful and violate the U.S. Constitution by undermining Congress' power over appropriations. They are asking a judge to block the Justice Department from enforcing the conditions. Judges in Rhode Island have issued a series of rulings preventing the administration from imposing conditions on grant funding that align with Trump's broader agenda. Most recently, a judge in the state this month barred the Justice Department from enforcing new restrictions on grant funding used to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Reed, Amo in West Africa to rebuild relationships amid Trump foreign policy turmoil
Rhode Island's ties to West Africa run unusually deep. Reed authored the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness law, creating a pathway to citizenship for thousands of Liberians in the United States. And Amo's connection is personal: his parents immigrated to Rhode Island from Liberia and Ghana. Advertisement Their visit underscores how the turmoil of Trump-era foreign policy is still reverberating abroad — and how much effort it takes to rebuild relationships once taken for granted. Reed and Amo are meeting with government leaders and non-governmental organizations during the trip, and are expected back later this week. This story first appeared in Rhode Map, our free newsletter about Rhode Island that also contains information about local events, links to interesting stories, and more. If you'd like to receive it via email Monday through Friday, . Dan McGowan can be reached at
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's trade ‘deals' are economically self-defeating and a geopolitical failure
To President Trump's supporters, the one-sided trade 'deals' negotiated with the United Kingdom, Japan and most recently the European Union may seem like victories. They may seem like a vindication of the president's supposed street-savvy negotiating style. In reality, they are self-defeating in their economics and harmful to America's alliances. Under the trade arrangement concluded at the end of July, the EU will scrap tariffs on U.S. imports and commit to large-scale purchases on American energy and defense systems, as well further U.S. investment. In exchange, the EU gets a U.S. tariff of 15 percent, vastly exceeding average tariff rates across the industrialized world in the post-war era. At the risk of stating the obvious, the three 'deals' are not trade agreements in any meaningful sense. They lack the legal weight that foreign trade agreements carry. Nor do they entail a liberalization of trade — rather, they ratify America's imposition of new tariff barriers against some of its closest allies, while also extracting concessions from these nations under threat of even higher tariffs. Because tariffs are effectively taxes on Americans, the U.S. economy and consumers are the first and foremost losers of these new 'deals,' especially in sectors where imports from the three partner economies serve as inputs into U.S. economic activity. The BMW plant in Spartanburg, S.C., to cite just one example, uses a lot of EU-made components; barring special, yet-unannounced carve-outs, its production has just become less competitive. Jobs will be lost, just as they were lost in the aftermath of Trump's first-term steel and aluminum tariffs across industries that rely on those metals. The geopolitical ramifications are even more pernicious. 'It's about security, it's about Ukraine,' the EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said to justify the European concessions back in July, not anticipating that the deal would have little impact on the administration's planned rapprochement with Russia, on full display in Alaska on Friday. American alliances since 1945 have been sustained by a perception of the U.S. as a fundamentally different kind of global superpower, one that was neither predatory nor seeking domination for its own sake. While Russia and China may have had control over their clients or over nations that they subjugated by brute force, the U.S. had real friends — at least until now. Europeans, the Japanese, or the Koreans have generally hoped for our leadership, comfortable in the knowledge that our decisions will be informed, at the very least, by a basic sense of decency. That sense is being shaken to the core. Trump is transforming a rules-based, voluntary system of international cooperation, imperfect as it was, into a system of quasi-colonial extortion. The MAGA camp might derive a sense of satisfaction from humiliating 'free-riding' U.S. allies, but the resulting arrangements are not sustainable. Canada and Mexico have learned that even a proper free trade agreement negotiated with a Trump administration and ratified by Congress offers little protection against new arbitrary tariffs. It will soon dawn on voters in Japan, the U.K. and the EU — if it hasn't already — that their country's trade deals are both hopelessly unbalanced and subject to change by Washington at a moment's notice. Even if the deals hold in the short term, they are bound the produce a political backlash, which will make the prospect of working together with the U.S. on matters of mutual interest far less likely. There was a reason why the Japanese government postponed the announcement of its trade deal with the U.S. until after its recent upper house parliamentary election, from which it has emerged badly bruised. Similarly, the European Commission will have a hard time selling its deal with Trump to member states — whose cooperation is essential if the promises of hundreds of billions in U.S.-bound investment and purchases of American goods are ever going to materialize. For decades, there have been voices in European politics decrying America's real or imaginary domination of the old continent. Today, they have a real, tangible grievance they can hold on to: The EU is essentially promising a large transfers of wealth to the U.S., in the form of future military and energy purchases as well as outbound investment, while acquiescing to being subjected to a trade policy that would have been essentially unthinkable a few months ago. If the Trump administration were purposefully trying to peel the EU, the U.K. and Japan away from America's system of alliances, it would be hard-pressed to find a more surefire method than these deals. They put to rest a benevolent vision of America that has underpinned our soft power worldwide for 80 years.
