Trump’s Second Term Flashcards
U.S. House GOP releases budget that raises debt limit by $4 trillion, extends tax cuts - Colorado Newsline; February 2025
Key Points:
• House GOP Budget Plan: House Republicans proposed a budget resolution to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, increase spending on border security and defense, and offset the deficit increase with major cuts to government programs.
• Debt Limit Increase: The resolution would raise the debt limit by $4 trillion while the U.S. national debt stands at $36.22 trillion.
• Projected Cuts to Medicaid: Democrats argue the budget will significantly cut Medicaid, impacting healthcare for 80 million low-income Americans. Rep. Joe Neguse called it a “betrayal of the middle class.”
• Senate GOP Budget Approach: The Senate’s plan separates defense/border security funding from tax extensions, prioritizing $175B for border security, $150B for defense, and $20B for the Coast Guard, all paid for with other program cuts.
• Reconciliation Process: House and Senate Republicans must align their budget resolutions to bypass the legislative filibuster and pass bills with a simple majority.
• Spending Allocations & Cuts:
• Increased Spending:
• Defense: ~$100B
• Border Security: ~$90B
• Judiciary & Immigration Enforcement: ~$110B
• Major Cuts:
• Agriculture: $230B
• Education & Workforce: $330B
• Energy & Commerce (including Medicaid): $880B
• Financial Services, Natural Resources, Oversight, and Transportation: ~$62B combined
• Democratic Response: Critics, including Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., warn that Medicaid cuts will result in millions losing healthcare, hospital closures, and job losses in healthcare sectors.
• Next Steps: House Republicans aim to finalize reconciliation bills by March 27, while Senate Republicans favor a phased approach, delaying broader immigration reform discussions.
Democrats believe Medicaid will be cut in the House GOP budget resolution that raises the debt limit because of how Republicans structured the plan to pay for tax cuts and increased spending on border security and defense.
Reasons Why Democrats Expect Medicaid Cuts:
1. $2 Trillion in Spending Cuts Required
• The budget resolution requires $2 trillion in federal spending cuts over the next decade.
• The Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, has been tasked with finding $880 billion in cost savings—one of the largest mandated reductions.
• Given the size of Medicaid’s budget, Democrats argue it’s almost impossible to meet this target without significantly cutting Medicaid.
2. No Specific Exemptions for Medicaid
• The GOP budget does not specify which programs will be protected from cuts.
• Historically, previous Republican budget proposals have targeted Medicaid through block grants, per-capita caps, or eligibility restrictions.
• Democrats fear that, as in past GOP proposals, Medicaid will bear the brunt of cuts.
3. Past Republican Proposals to Cut Medicaid
• In previous years, Republicans have sought to transform Medicaid into a block grant system, which would limit federal funding and shift costs to states.
• The Republican Study Committee’s budget proposal also included deep Medicaid reductions.
4. Cuts Hidden in Reconciliation Instructions
• The House budget resolution includes reconciliation instructions directing committees to cut spending.
• Since the Energy and Commerce Committee is responsible for $880 billion in cuts, and Medicaid is its largest program, Democrats believe Medicaid will be the primary target.
5. Republican Messaging on “Waste” and “Reform”
• Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP leaders have framed these spending cuts as reducing “fraud, waste, and abuse”, language that has often been used to justify Medicaid restrictions.
• Democrats see this as a coded way of signaling Medicaid reductions without explicitly stating them.
Bottom Line:
The House GOP budget resolution raises the debt limit but also requires massive spending cuts. Since Medicaid is one of the biggest federal programs and falls under a committee tasked with nearly $900 billion in reductions, Democrats believe it is the most likely target for budget cuts, even though Republicans have not explicitly confirmed it yet.
Is Trump getting a third term any different than FDR? - Chat GPT
Yes, Trump pursuing what some call a “third term” would be very different from what Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) did, both legally and historically. Here’s a breakdown of the key differences:
⸻
- Constitutional Legality
• FDR (1932–1945):
• Legally elected to four terms (only served part of the fourth due to his death in 1945).
• At the time, there was no constitutional limit on the number of presidential terms.
• The 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms, was passed in 1951, after FDR’s presidency.
• Donald Trump:
• The 22nd Amendment now makes it illegal for anyone to be elected president more than twice.
• Trump already served one term (2017–2021). If re-elected in 2024 (or serving now in 2025 in your scenario), that would be his second and final allowed term.
• Any effort by Trump to seek a third term after 2028 would violate the Constitution, unless the 22nd Amendment were repealed (which is extremely unlikely and politically implausible).
⸻
- Context and Precedent
• FDR’s era was unprecedented (Great Depression, WWII), and many Americans supported continuity in leadership.
• Trump’s attempt at a third term would break constitutional norms that have been in place for over 70 years and would likely trigger a major constitutional crisis unless done through legal constitutional amendment.
⸻
- Key Takeaway
• FDR did not break any laws—there was no limit back then.
• Trump would be violating the Constitution if he tried to run or serve a third term under current law.
Abrego Garcia Deportation - Billy Binion; Reason - https://x.com/billybinion/status/1907099827030147526?s=46&t=PCx7for48qe1Y8Vpm9ZM7g
Yes, the recent case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia has garnered significant attention. Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Maryland resident, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, despite a 2019 immigration judge’s ruling that granted him protection from deportation due to credible fears of persecution by local gangs . The Trump administration acknowledged this as an “administrative error” but stated that it lacks the authority to facilitate his return, citing his current detention in a Salvadoran prison .  
Abrego Garcia, who fled gang violence in El Salvador in 2011, has been living in the U.S. with his U.S.-citizen wife and their autistic 5-year-old son . His sudden deportation has caused significant distress to his family, particularly his son, who has been notably affected by his father’s absence. 
The administration has alleged, without providing evidence, that Abrego Garcia has ties to the MS-13 gang, a claim his attorneys and family vehemently deny . Maryland Governor Wes Moore criticized the federal administration for disregarding due process and urged corrective action . 
Legal efforts are underway to address this situation, with Abrego Garcia’s family and attorneys seeking his return to the United States. The case has ignited widespread outrage and raised concerns about the integrity of the U.S. immigration system and the protection of individuals facing persecution.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Kilmar Abrego Garcia of being affiliated with the MS-13 gang. This allegation originated from a 2019 incident when Abrego Garcia was detained in a Home Depot parking lot in Maryland. During this encounter, a confidential informant claimed he was a gang member; however, no concrete evidence was provided, and local police did not pursue charges against him . 
Despite these unsubstantiated claims, an immigration judge in 2019 granted Abrego Garcia “withholding of removal,” a legal protection preventing his deportation due to credible fears of persecution in El Salvador. This decision indicates that the judge did not find sufficient evidence to support the gang affiliation allegations .  
In March 2025, ICE detained Abrego Garcia again, asserting that his protected status had changed and reiterating the previous gang affiliation claims. Subsequently, he was deported to El Salvador, an action ICE later admitted was an “administrative error” .  
Abrego Garcia’s family and legal representatives have consistently denied any gang ties, emphasizing his lack of a criminal record and his stable family life in Maryland with his U.S.-citizen wife and their disabled son.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a U.S. citizen. He is a Salvadoran national who fled El Salvador in 2011 to escape gang violence and entered the United States without inspection. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal,” a form of legal protection that prevents deportation to a country where the individual is likely to face persecution. This status allowed him to reside and work legally in the U.S., but it did not confer citizenship or permanent residency. During his time in the U.S., Abrego Garcia married a U.S. citizen, and they have a child together who is also a U.S. citizen.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) alleged that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was affiliated with the MS-13 gang, primarily based on a 2019 incident. During this event, local police detained him outside a Maryland Home Depot, citing his attire—a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie—and a confidential informant’s claim that he was part of MS-13’s “Westerns clique” in Long Island, New York, despite no evidence of him residing there. 
Abrego Garcia and his legal representatives have consistently denied these allegations, emphasizing his lack of a criminal record and his stable family life in Maryland. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal,” recognizing the credible threat of persecution he faced if returned to El Salvador. 
Despite the absence of concrete evidence supporting the gang affiliation claims, ICE deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March 2025, later admitting this action resulted from an “administrative error.” The Trump administration has since argued against facilitating his return, maintaining the unproven allegations of gang involvement.  
Abrego Garcia’s family and attorneys continue to contest these claims, seeking his return to the United States.
Trump administration might host a military parade in Washington on the president’s birthday - AP News; April 2025
The Trump administration is in early discussions about organizing a military parade in Washington, D.C. on June 14, coinciding with both Trump’s 79th birthday and the Army’s 250th anniversary. While the White House insists no parade has been scheduled, the idea is being explored as part of the Army’s long-planned birthday festival, which is set to feature equipment displays on the National Mall. The parade, if it happens, could stretch from Arlington, Virginia, across the Potomac into D.C., but no final decisions have been made.
Trump has long dreamed of hosting a grand military parade, inspired by France’s Bastille Day celebration in 2017. A previous attempt during his first term was scrapped due to projected costs nearing $92 million and logistical issues. Local officials, including D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, have expressed concerns—especially about the damage tanks could cause to roads. Arlington County and D.C. authorities confirmed they’ve been contacted but remain wary, with some officials noting the potential insensitivity of such a display during a time of economic strain for many in the military community.
Kash Patel once said he would ‘come after’ journalists. It now hangs over his FBI candidacy - NBC News; 12/4/2024
Kash Patel, a loyal Trump ally and former national security official, is drawing significant scrutiny following Donald Trump’s announcement that he would nominate Patel as FBI director if re-elected. Central to the controversy is a 2023 podcast appearance with Steve Bannon, during which Patel declared, “We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.” Though Patel has since tried to walk back his remarks — telling NBC News that his intent was only to pursue those who “broke the law” — his prior rhetoric has ignited concern across the political spectrum. “I’ve always said this, I think reporters are invaluable,” Patel told NBC. “But I think there should be some form of accountability” for those who spread disinformation in coordination with the government.
Despite his attempts to clarify, Patel’s comments are likely to become a flashpoint if his nomination moves forward. His ties to the MAGA movement, promotion of “deep state” conspiracy theories, and threats against journalists have alarmed both Democrats and some Republicans. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said he plans to ask Patel to “clarify” his remarks, while Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said, “Patel has got to address that… that’s his words, not mine.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) went further, calling Patel’s statements “totally disqualifying” and warning that even the suggestion of weaponizing the FBI against journalists could be “crippling financially and personally” for those targeted. Meanwhile, Patel’s allies, including conservative activist Mike Davis, insist his comments were exaggerated for effect, with Davis noting, “Kash and I use hyperbole to force people to pay attention.” Still, Patel’s nomination challenges long-standing norms of political neutrality within the FBI — and signals a broader battle over press freedom and politicization of federal law enforcement under a potential second Trump administration.
