Category: Uncategorized

The U.S. Senate has received official notification that Luke Petit’s nomination for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury has been withdrawn. The nomination, originally sent to the Senate on February 3, 2025, is no longer under consideration.

The reason for the withdrawal has not yet been publicly disclosed, but it is common for nominees to step aside due to political concerns, background vetting issues, or personal decisions.

With Petit’s withdrawal, the Trump administration will need to put forward a new nominee for the critical Treasury position, which plays a key role in economic policy, financial regulation, and oversight of federal financial operations.

More details may emerge in the coming days regarding who will replace Petit as the nominee and the reasoning behind the withdrawal. Stay tuned for updates.

The U.S. Senate is advancing a series of key confirmations for President Trump’s second administration, filling critical leadership roles across government agencies. These appointments will shape policy on national security, education, labor, trade, and diplomacy in the coming years.

---

Key Confirmations in National Security & Foreign Affairs

Several high-profile nominees have been tapped to oversee national security, counterterrorism, and international diplomacy:

• Sean Cairncross (MN) – National Cyber Director
• John Hurley (CA) – Under Secretary for Terrorism & Financial Crimes
• Joseph Kent (WA) – Director of the National Counterterrorism Center
• Thomas DiNanno (FL) – Under Secretary of State for Arms Control & International Security
• Peter Hoekstra (MI) – Ambassador to Canada
• George Glass (OR) – Ambassador to Japan
• Mike Huckabee (AR) – Ambassador to Israel
• Ronald Johnson (FL) – Ambassador to Mexico
• Warren Stephens (AR) – Ambassador to the United Kingdom
• Charles Kushner (NY) – Ambassador to France & Monaco

With ongoing global tensions and cybersecurity threats, these officials will be instrumental in shaping U.S. defense strategy, intelligence operations, and international diplomacy.

---

Major Appointments in Economic & Labor Policy

The administration is also prioritizing key economic, financial, and labor positions:

• Daniel Aronowitz (VA) – Assistant Secretary of Labor
• David Keeling (KY) – Assistant Secretary of Labor
• Henry Mack III (FL) – Assistant Secretary of Labor
• Wayne Palmer (VA) – Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety & Health
• Jason De Sena Trennert (NY) – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
• Luke Pettit (DC) – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
• Jonathan Gould (VA) – Comptroller of the Currency
• Brian Quintenz (OH) – Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission

These nominees will play a central role in shaping financial regulation, workforce policies, and economic growth strategies under the new administration.

---

Shaping the Future of Education & Energy

Education policy remains a major focus, with appointments set to reshape curriculum standards, civil rights policy, and technical education:

• Kirsten Baesler (ND) – Assistant Secretary for Elementary & Secondary Education
• Kevin O’Farrell (FL) – Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, & Adult Education
• Kimberly Richey (TX) – Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of Education
• Mary Riley (DC) – Assistant Secretary for Legislation & Congressional Affairs, Department of Education
• Nicholas Kent (VA) – Under Secretary of Education

In the energy sector, officials are set to lead critical initiatives on energy security, environmental policy, and resource management:

• David Eisner (NY) – Assistant Secretary of Energy
• Audrey Robertson (CO) – Assistant Secretary of Energy (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy)
• Tina Pierce (ID) – Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy

---

What Comes Next?

The Senate will continue its confirmation process in the coming days, with some nominees facing strong opposition from Democrats. As these officials take office, their policies will shape domestic and international affairs, influence regulatory frameworks, and set the tone for the administration’s second term.

February 12, 2025 – Washington, D.C.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is poised to become the next Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) after the Senate reached a unanimous-consent agreement setting his final confirmation vote for 11 a.m. on February 13, 2025. The Senate’s 53-47 vote to end debate earlier today has paved the way for what is expected to be one of the most controversial confirmations of the Trump administration.

A High-Stakes, Polarizing Nomination

Kennedy’s appointment has drawn both intense support and fierce opposition from across the political spectrum. His nomination hearings focused heavily on his longstanding criticism of vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry, and federal health agencies, sparking heated debate over his fitness to lead the nation’s health department.

The unanimous-consent agreement ensured that Kennedy’s confirmation process moved forward without further delays, with procedural rules allowing post-cloture debate time to be counted from 1 a.m. on February 12, 2025. With Senate Republicans largely united in favor of Kennedy’s nomination, his final confirmation appears all but certain.

---

Supporters’ Case for RFK Jr.

1. Refocusing on Chronic Disease

Kennedy has argued that the federal government has over-prioritized infectious diseases while failing to address the growing burden of chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, and autoimmune disorders. He has pledged to reform the CDC, FDA, and NIH, shifting focus toward preventative health, environmental factors, and food safety.

2. Holding Big Pharma and Health Bureaucracies Accountable

A well-known critic of the pharmaceutical industry, Kennedy has promised to take on corporate interests and increase transparency within the federal health agencies. His supporters believe he will curb the undue influence of pharmaceutical companies, rein in wasteful government spending, and advocate for medical freedom.

3. Bipartisan Populist Appeal

Kennedy’s independent streak has resonated with voters and lawmakers who distrust government overreach. His confirmation has drawn support from conservatives who view him as a reformer who will challenge the entrenched bureaucracy within HHS.

---

Critics’ Concerns Over Kennedy’s Leadership

1. Vaccine Controversy and Public Health Risks

Kennedy has been a vocal skeptic of vaccines, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from public health experts and Democratic lawmakers. Critics argue that his past statements could undermine vaccination efforts, erode public trust in HHS’s ability to combat infectious diseases, and reverse decades of progress in public health initiatives.

2. Opposition from Key Senate Democrats and Public Health Officials

Despite initially entertaining some of Kennedy’s ideas, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) ultimately voted against his confirmation. Other Senate Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have called Kennedy’s nomination “dangerous” and warned that his leadership could weaken the nation’s pandemic preparedness.

3. McConnell’s Potential ‘No’ Vote

Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), a polio survivor, has voiced concerns about Kennedy’s stance on vaccines, leading some to speculate that he may vote against the final confirmation. However, McConnell’s opposition would not be enough to block Kennedy, as all Republicans except for potential defectors remain supportive.

---

What Comes Next?

If confirmed, Kennedy will oversee the Department of Health and Human Services, which manages agencies like the CDC, FDA, and NIH, and administers programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. His appointment could signal a major shift in federal health policy, with new priorities on environmental health, corporate oversight, and chronic disease prevention.

With a final Senate vote set for February 13, 2025, all eyes will be on whether Kennedy’s nomination sparks further party-line divisions or if any last-minute defections shift the outcome.

On February 12, 2025, the U.S. Senate narrowly confirmed Tulsi Gabbard as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) with a 52-48 vote, capping off three days of intense debate, partisan clashes, and political maneuvering. The vote, which saw unified Republican support with the exception of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), underscored deep divisions over Gabbard’s appointment.

A Controversial Nomination

Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, Iraq War veteran, and 2020 presidential candidate, has long been a political maverick. Once a rising star in the Democratic Party, she became a vocal critic of the establishment, frequently challenging both parties on issues of war, intelligence overreach, and civil liberties.

Her nomination was backed by President Trump and key Republican leaders, reflecting an unconventional but strategic alliance. However, it also triggered strong Democratic opposition and dissent from some traditional Republican figures, including McConnell, who cast a notable “no” vote against her confirmation.

---

Supporters’ Case for Gabbard

1. An Independent Thinker with Military Experience

Proponents praised Gabbard’s military background, noting her firsthand experience in national security, foreign policy, and intelligence operations. Her service as a Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, including a deployment to Iraq, was cited as proof of her commitment to national defense.

2. Strong Stance Against Foreign Wars & Intelligence Overreach

Gabbard has long been an outspoken critic of regime-change wars and U.S. interventionism. Supporters, particularly libertarian-leaning Republicans, saw her as a necessary check on the intelligence community, which has often been criticized for politicization and mass surveillance.

3. Bipartisan Appeal & Willingness to Challenge the Status Quo

Her independence from both parties made her a unique pick, appealing to Republicans who favor reform within the intelligence agencies. Supporters believe she would prioritize transparency and accountability, limiting government overreach while focusing on genuine national security threats.

---

Opposition Arguments Against Gabbard

1. Distrust from the Intelligence Community

Many in the intelligence and defense sectors questioned Gabbard’s loyalty to traditional U.S. alliances, particularly due to her past engagements with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and her criticism of U.S. foreign policy. Opponents worried that she would take an anti-establishment approach that could undermine intelligence operations.

2. Democratic Concerns Over Her Shift Right

Gabbard’s increasing alignment with conservative positions—from her exit from the Democratic Party to her support for Republican-backed policies—alienated her former Democratic colleagues. Senate Democrats nearly unanimously opposed her nomination, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling her “a threat to the integrity of our intelligence leadership.”

3. Mitch McConnell’s Rejection: A Sign of Internal GOP Friction

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) “no” vote” was the most surprising defection. While McConnell did not offer extensive remarks, sources indicate his concerns over Gabbard’s unpredictability and her frequent criticism of establishment figures, including himself. His opposition suggested that not all Republicans were fully comfortable with her leadership style.

---

The Final Vote & Next Steps

Gabbard’s confirmation marks a significant shift in how the intelligence community will be run under the Trump administration. With a 52-48 split, she secured every Republican vote except McConnell’s, while all Democrats and Independents opposed her.

As she takes the helm as DNI, Gabbard will oversee the 18 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and FBI. Her leadership is expected to challenge traditional intelligence norms, potentially reducing interventionist policies, pushing back against intelligence overreach, and refocusing on domestic security threats.

What do you think? Will Tulsi Gabbard bring necessary reforms to the intelligence community, or will her outsider status create instability?

The Oversight Subcommittee on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) held its first hearing, launching a bold initiative to tackle waste, fraud, and abuse within the federal government. The committee, working alongside President Trump and Elon Musk, aims to rein in excessive government spending, increase transparency, and restore accountability in public programs.

At the heart of the discussion was the nation’s $36 trillion debt and the unsustainable financial burden it places on American taxpayers. The hearing also took a deep dive into how the welfare state has fostered dependence, discouraged work, and even penalized marriage, all while failing to provide clear oversight on where taxpayer dollars go.

Here are the key takeaways from the hearing:

---

1. America’s Welfare State: A System That Punishes Hard Work and Marriage

One of the most shocking revelations was the way current welfare programs penalize marriage and trap low-income individuals in long-term government dependence.

• Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, explained how welfare benefits are determined based on joint household income, creating a “marriage penalty.”
• Reducing this penalty could dramatically increase marriage rates—one study found that eliminating just $1,000 in marriage penalties from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) would increase marriage rates among low-income women by 10%.
• Welfare programs are structured without incentives to work, meaning many able-bodied adults remain dependent on government aid rather than entering the workforce.

The committee emphasized the need to reform welfare so that it encourages work, supports families, and helps Americans escape poverty instead of trapping them in it.

---

2. A “Dizzying Maze” of Wasteful Government Spending

Patrice Onwuka, Director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent Women, outlined how the U.S. spends $1 trillion across 80+ anti-poverty programs, creating massive inefficiencies:

• 15 different agencies provide food aid
• 13 agencies handle housing
• 12 agencies oversee health care
• 5 agencies administer cash aid

With no centralized oversight, this duplication of services leads to billions of dollars lost to fraud and inefficiency. The hearing highlighted the urgent need to streamline programs, track spending, and eliminate redundancy.

---

3. Welfare Programs Lack Work Requirements

A major loophole in the welfare system is that many programs do not require recipients to work.

• States have waived work requirements, allowing people to collect benefits indefinitely.
• Onwuka confirmed that Congress can work with states to close these loopholes and ensure that welfare remains a safety net, not a permanent income source.
• Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) proposed simplifying welfare programs by introducing a sliding scale for benefits, rather than an all-or-nothing approach that discourages work and marriage.

The committee agreed that implementing work requirements is essential to stopping generational dependence on welfare.

---

4. The Government Can’t Track How Much It Spends on Welfare

Perhaps one of the most concerning discoveries was that there is no federal record of how much taxpayer money is spent per welfare recipient.

• Subcommittee Chairman Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) questioned whether the government could track welfare spending per household.
• Robert Rector admitted: “We don’t even know how much money we spend. There’s no federal record of total spending on means-tested programs for children.”
• Welfare recipients often receive benefits from multiple programs simultaneously, yet no system exists to calculate their total aid package.

The DOGE committee emphasized the need for full transparency so that taxpayers know where their money is going.

---

5. COVID-19 Spending Created Billions in Waste and Fraud

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) exposed how pandemic-era welfare expansions led to out-of-control fraud and abuse.

• The U.S. government spent between $4.8 and $7 trillion in response to COVID-19.
• No receipts exist for much of this spending.
• Expanded Medicaid programs remain in place, allowing able-bodied adults to stay on welfare instead of re-entering the workforce.
• Today, 60% of able-bodied Medicaid recipients are unemployed, with 25 million Americans reporting no earned income.

The committee underscored the importance of rolling back pandemic-era expansions and ensuring that welfare recipients return to work.

---

6. The Hidden Cost of Illegal Immigration on Welfare

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) exposed one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer dollars—the funding of welfare programs for illegal immigrants.

• Despite claims that illegal immigrants cannot access welfare, they and their families can receive benefits from over a dozen different programs, including:
  • Food stamps
  • Medicaid and Medicare
  • Cash assistance
  • Student loans
  • Housing subsidies
• The federal government spends $50 billion annually on welfare for illegal immigrants, while states spend another $100 billion.

With millions of American citizens struggling financially, committee members argued that taxpayer-funded benefits should be reserved for legal residents.

---

What’s Next? Reform and Oversight

The DOGE subcommittee made it clear:
🚨 Government waste, fraud, and inefficiency will no longer be ignored.
🚨 Welfare must be reformed to promote work, not dependence.
🚨 Americans deserve transparency on where their tax dollars are going.

Moving forward, the committee will assist the Trump Administration in restructuring the welfare state, eliminating wasteful spending, and enforcing work requirements.

With President Trump, Elon Musk, and key lawmakers pushing for real reform, the fight against government inefficiency is just getting started.

Stay tuned as the DOGE subcommittee takes on the swamp and works to restore fiscal sanity in Washington.

The Oversight Subcommittee on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) convened for its first hearing today, launching what promises to be a high-stakes examination of government waste, fraud, and inefficiency. The committee’s mission is clear: to bring full transparency to the misuse of taxpayer dollars, expose systemic failures, and outline tangible solutions to the financial crisis facing the United States.

A Nation in Debt: The Stark Reality

The hearing began with an unflinching assessment of the national debt, which has ballooned to $36 trillion—a sum so vast that even defunding the entire federal government would not be enough to eliminate the burden. The committee chair emphasized that this is not a partisan issue but an existential crisis for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Beyond the raw debt figures, the hearing highlighted a growing and unsustainable reality: the staggering cost of interest payments on the national debt. These payments, which do nothing to directly serve the American people, are projected to reach:

• $952 billion in 2025, surpassing the entire military budget
• $1 trillion in 2026
• $1.8 trillion by 2035
• $13.8 trillion over the next decade

These payments represent money that could otherwise be invested in infrastructure, social programs, or economic growth. Instead, they serve only to keep the country afloat as it drowns in debt—money owed to creditors that effectively hold the American people in what was described as “debt slavery.”

The Root of the Problem: Government Spending and Accountability

The chair did not shy away from assigning blame, stating that Congress and past presidential administrations have been responsible for plunging the country into this financial quagmire. The hearing framed the issue as one of government accountability versus the reality of how Americans and private businesses operate.

Private businesses must earn revenue, serve customers well, and maintain financial discipline, while federal employees and bureaucracies receive paychecks regardless of performance. The government collects taxes under threat of penalty, yet fails to uphold the same fiscal discipline expected of the American workforce.

The chair pointed out the stark difference in consequences:

• If a private business fails, it goes bankrupt and employees lose their jobs.
• If the federal government fails, it still gets funded, bureaucracies still operate, and taxpayer dollars continue to be collected.

This disconnect between accountability and financial responsibility, the committee argued, is a betrayal of the American people.

DOGE: A Movement for Government Efficiency

The idea for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was born out of public frustration with government waste. It became a key pillar of President Trump’s campaign, ultimately contributing to his victory in November. The committee vowed to work closely with the President, as well as figures like Elon Musk and the DOGE team, in their shared mission to overhaul government spending.

The subcommittee aims to eliminate waste, reform inefficient programs, and hold agencies accountable for mismanaging taxpayer funds. This week’s focus: improper payments within Medicaid and Medicare, a sector notorious for financial mismanagement.

A Unified Front Against Waste

In closing, the committee chair called for bipartisan cooperation in addressing the crisis. While ideological differences remain, the hearing underscored the need for lawmakers from both parties to prioritize fiscal responsibility over political agendas. The American people, the chair noted, are watching closely.

The hearing set the stage for what promises to be a rigorous and potentially contentious process. With improper payments, reckless spending, and bureaucratic inefficiencies on the table for review, the DOGE subcommittee has positioned itself as the frontline force in the battle against government waste.

The session then proceeded with the opening statement from Ranking Member Ms. Stansbury, who was expected to provide a counterpoint or alternative perspective on the committee’s priorities.

As the subcommittee moves forward, all eyes will be on its ability to deliver real reforms—and whether Washington is truly ready to take on the entrenched culture of inefficiency that has plagued the federal government for decades.

The U.S. Senate spent the day in executive session, continuing its deliberations on the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to serve as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). As expected, the debate was highly contentious, with notable speeches from both supporters and opponents of Gabbard’s appointment.

The session culminated with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s closing remarks, where he strongly criticized the nomination, calling Gabbard a “known conspiracy theorist” and expressing deep concerns about her potential leadership of the nation’s intelligence community.

The Senate adjourned for the day and will reconvene at 10:00 AM tomorrow for further debate and a potential final vote on Gabbard’s confirmation.

---

Gabbard’s Controversial Nomination: The Core Debate

The nomination of Tulsi Gabbard, a former Congresswoman from Hawaii, to lead the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has sparked intense debate among senators.

🔹 Supporters argue that Gabbard’s military background, foreign policy experience, and willingness to challenge the Washington establishment make her a strong candidate for the role. They emphasize that she has long advocated for a more restrained foreign policy, pushing back against interventionist policies and emphasizing diplomatic solutions over military conflict.

🔹 Opponents, led by Democratic leadership, see her as a controversial and untrustworthy choice, pointing to her past statements and alleged ties to foreign entities. Schumer’s speech today reflected a broader concern among Democrats that Gabbard’s views on Russia, intelligence agencies, and global security could create conflicts within the intelligence community.

Schumer did not mince words, warning that confirming a figure he described as a “conspiracy theorist” to head America’s intelligence apparatus could have long-term consequences for national security.

---

What Happens Next?

📌 Tomorrow at 10:00 AM, the Senate will reconvene for further consideration of Gabbard’s nomination.

📌 A final confirmation vote could happen soon, depending on whether Senate leadership decides to push forward.

📌 If confirmed, Gabbard would oversee America’s intelligence agencies, including the CIA, NSA, and FBI, and play a crucial role in shaping national security strategy.

With both sides deeply entrenched, the outcome of this nomination remains uncertain. Will Gabbard secure enough votes to be confirmed, or will opposition efforts successfully derail her appointment?

Stay tuned for further updates as the Senate continues its debate on this high-stakes nomination. 🚨

The U.S. House of Representatives convened at 10:00 AM for a new legislative day, handling key resolutions, debates, and procedural votes before adjourning at 3:56 PM. The most significant action of the day included the passage of H. Con. Res. 11, which formally set the date for President Donald J. Trump’s first State of the Union (SOTU) address of his second term on March 4, 2025, at 9:00 PM. Additionally, the House voted on H. Res. 122, which governed the consideration of H.R. 77, a bill targeting “midnight rules” from outgoing administrations.

---

Key Legislative Actions & Votes

✅ H. Con. Res. 11 – Setting the State of the Union Date

• What It Does: This resolution formally schedules a joint session of Congress to receive the President’s message—in this case, the State of the Union address.
• Vote Outcome: Passed without objection, meaning no member present formally opposed it.
• Why It Matters: This will be President Trump’s first SOTU address of his second term, setting the stage for his administration’s agenda. The date, March 4, is historically significant because it was the traditional Inauguration Day before the 20th Amendment, which moved inaugurations to January 20.

✅ H. Res. 122 – Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 77

• What It Does: Sets the rules for debating H.R. 77, which allows Congress to overturn multiple midnight rules in one vote rather than addressing them individually.
• Key Votes:
  • Motion to Proceed: Agreed to by a recorded vote of 216-205 (Roll No. 39).
  • Ordering the Previous Question (Procedural Vote): Agreed to by 210-184 (Roll No. 38).
• Why It Matters: This was a strictly party-line vote, with Republicans voting in favor and Democrats opposing it. This indicates deep partisan disagreement over how Congress should handle last-minute executive actions from previous administrations.

---

Procedural and Routine Business

🔹 Morning-Hour Debate (10:00 AM – 10:35 AM): Members of Congress were given time for short speeches on various topics before the House recessed.

🔹 Pledge of Allegiance (12:02 PM): Led by Rep. Subramanyam.

🔹 Approval of the Journal (12:02 PM): The official record of House proceedings from the previous session was approved without objection.

🔹 One-Minute Speeches (12:02 PM & 2:05 PM): Members were given one minute each to speak on issues of their choice, typically political statements or acknowledgments.

🔹 Special Order Speeches (2:14 PM – Adjournment): After legislative business concluded, members gave longer speeches on topics of their choosing.

🔹 Adjournment (3:56 PM): The House agreed to adjourn following a motion by Rep. Schweikert (R-AZ), passed by voice vote.

---

Understanding the Votes and Procedures

1️⃣ What is a “Privileged Matter”?

• Both H. Res. 122 and H. Con. Res. 11 were considered as privileged matters, meaning they were given priority over regular business and moved to immediate consideration.
• This is often used for procedural resolutions, such as setting the rules for debating bills or scheduling major events like the State of the Union.

2️⃣ What is a “Motion to Reconsider Laid on the Table”?

• This is a standard procedural move that prevents a passed measure from being reconsidered.
• It ensures that once the House has approved something—like H. Con. Res. 11—it cannot be brought back for a second vote, effectively finalizing the decision.

3️⃣ What is “Ordering the Previous Question”?

• This is a procedural vote to end debate and move to an immediate vote on a resolution.
• In this case, the Republican majority voted to end debate on H. Res. 122, forcing a final vote on whether the resolution would be adopted.

---

Looking Ahead

📌 Next House Meeting: The House will reconvene on February 12, 2025, at 10:00 AM.

📌 What’s Next for H.R. 77? With the passage of H. Res. 122, the House is now set to debate and vote on H.R. 77, which could significantly alter how Congress overturns last-minute executive rules.

📌 March 4, 2025: President Trump’s State of the Union Address will take place before a joint session of Congress. Expect major policy announcements and legislative priorities to be outlined.

Stay tuned for further updates as Congress continues its legislative work!

House Concurrent Resolution 11 has officially set the date for President Donald J. Trump’s first State of the Union (SOTU) address of his second term. The speech will take place on March 4, 2025, at 9:00 PM, before a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol.

A Historic SOTU Date and the 20th Amendment

While the State of the Union address is traditionally delivered in January or February, this year’s speech is scheduled for March 4—a date with significant historical relevance.

Prior to the ratification of the 20th Amendment in 1933, March 4 was the official Inauguration Day for U.S. presidents. This meant that between Election Day in November and the new president taking office in March, there was a long, four-month “lame-duck” period where outgoing presidents had limited authority, and newly elected leaders had to wait to implement their policies.

The 20th Amendment changed this, moving the presidential inauguration from March 4 to January 20 to shorten this gap and allow new administrations to take office more swiftly. Since then, March 4 has lost its formal role in American government, making its selection for the 2025 State of the Union address a unique and symbolic choice.

Scheduling the State of the Union on March 4, 2025, may reflect both logistical considerations and historical awareness, potentially linking President Trump’s return to office with a tradition from America’s earlier political era.

What to Expect in the Address

The State of the Union provides the president with a platform to outline national priorities, propose legislative goals, and deliver a message to the American people about the administration’s vision. Given the deep political divisions in Washington, this address is expected to highlight key themes such as:

• Economic Policies & Job Growth – Trump has previously focused on tax cuts, deregulation, and economic expansion. His speech will likely emphasize continued job creation and energy production.
• Border Security & Immigration – A major issue in his previous term, expect firm policies on border enforcement and legal immigration reforms.
• Foreign Policy & National Security – The president may outline strategies on China, Russia, and NATO, along with military spending and defense initiatives.
• Legislative Priorities – With a new Republican-controlled Congress, Trump may push for education reforms, tax policies, healthcare adjustments, and Second Amendment protections.

Speaker Johnson’s Invitation & Congressional Reception

House Speaker Mike Johnson formally extended the invitation to President Trump, emphasizing that America is experiencing a resurgence of patriotism, unity, and hope. Johnson expressed confidence that the Trump administration and the 119th Congress could achieve significant legislative victories.

In accordance with congressional protocol, the Vice President, JD Vance, will also be present in his role as President of the Senate, sitting alongside Speaker Johnson during the address.

While Republicans are expected to fully support the president’s legislative agenda, Democrats may push back against policies they see as controversial, particularly in areas such as climate policy, social spending, and foreign diplomacy.

A Speech That Will Set the Tone for 2025

The March 4, 2025, State of the Union will be one of the most closely watched political events of the year, as it will define the early months of President Trump’s second term. The speech is likely to rally Trump’s supporters, set the tone for his administration’s next steps, and signal upcoming legislative battles in Congress.

With all eyes on Washington, the nation awaits what will undoubtedly be a high-impact address from the 47th President of the United States.

📅 Mark your calendar: March 4, 2025, at 9:00 PM EST.

In a swift and highly partisan vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 77 on February 10, 2025. This resolution changes the way Congress can reject “midnight rules”—regulations issued in the final weeks of an outgoing presidential administration.

What made this vote particularly unusual was its rapid advancement. In just a few hours, H.R. 77 went from its first reading to a final vote, bypassing the standard legislative process that often takes weeks or months.

The vote fell strictly along party lines:
✅ All present Republicans voted “Aye”
❌ All present Democrats voted “Nay”

---

What H.R. 77 Does and Why It Matters

H.R. 77 is a House resolution, meaning it affects House rules and procedures rather than creating new law. The resolution changes how Congress can disapprove multiple midnight rules at once, streamlining the process for overturning last-minute executive regulations.

Current Process (Before H.R. 77):

• If an outgoing president issues multiple regulations, Congress must vote on each one separately to overturn them.
• This makes it time-consuming and difficult to reject a large batch of rules.

New Process Under H.R. 77:

• Congress can now bundle multiple midnight rules together into a single resolution of disapproval and vote on them all at once.
• This means Congress can act more quickly and efficiently to invalidate last-minute regulations from an outgoing administration.

Supporters of H.R. 77 argue this change is necessary to prevent presidents from rushing through controversial rules in their final days. Opponents, however, see it as a broad power grab that could be used to wipe out regulations without proper individual scrutiny.

---

A Rare Fast-Track Vote: How H.R. 77 Passed in Just Hours

What makes this vote stand out is how quickly it moved through the House. Normally, legislation goes through several steps, including committee review, multiple readings, and extended debate before a final vote.

However, H.R. 77 was pushed forward in a matter of hours, thanks to procedural maneuvers that limited debate and blocked amendments:

• First Reading: The bill was introduced and immediately moved forward.
• Waiving Procedural Barriers: A House resolution waived all points of order, preventing procedural objections that could delay the process.
• Debate Time Limited: Only one hour of debate was allowed, split evenly between supporters and opponents.
• Final Vote Taken the Same Day: Rather than allowing time for amendments or further discussion, the resolution was pushed directly to a final vote.

This kind of expedited process is rare, usually reserved for high-priority measures backed by the majority party. The fact that H.R. 77 was rushed through in a single day signals that House Republicans saw it as an urgent priority, while Democrats were left with little time to mount opposition.

---

What Happens Next?

Since H.R. 77 is a House resolution, it does not go to the Senate or the President. Instead, it takes effect immediately within the House, changing the way the chamber handles midnight rules going forward.

This means that in future sessions, if an outgoing president issues multiple last-minute regulations, the House can now vote to overturn them in one resolution rather than voting on each rule separately.

The long-term impact of H.R. 77 will depend on how future Congresses use this power. It could become a routine tool for quickly rejecting midnight rules, or it could become a flashpoint in future partisan battles over executive authority.

Stay tuned for more updates as the House continues to reshape its procedural rules.