GET THE APP
Wednesday, June 18, 2025

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

9 hours ago
Economy

Fed Chief Powell Likely Making ANOTHER Terrible Decision…

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee is expected to keep interest rates at their current levels when the central bank’s leadership meets on Wednesday, despite continued indicators that inflation has subsided.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Federal Reserve, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, the Federal Open Market Committee, President Donald J. Trump, and American borrowers and consumers.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Chairman Powell will announce the central bank’s policy on the federal funds rate on Wednesday, June 18, 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Some members have been expressing concerns about slowing growth, although very slightly, and that should be debated heavily as a driver to cut rates sooner rather than continuing to pause,” contends financial analyst Brian Mulberry, a client portfolio manager at Zacks Investment Management.

🎯IMPACT: President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly called on Powell and the Fed to begin reducing interest rates to energize the United States economy. However, since December of last year, the central bank has opted to hold rates at their current range of 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent.

IN FULL

The Federal Reserve Bank’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is widely expected to hold the federal funds rate steady, currently between 4.25 and 4.5 percent, following its June meeting, which ends on Wednesday. Currently, the CME Group’s FedWatch Tool indicates a 99.9 percent likelihood that the central bank will maintain current interest rates, despite mounting pressure from President Donald J. Trump to begin enacting cuts to borrowing costs.

Interest rates have remained unchanged since December last year, with the central bank claiming economic uncertainty related to the impact of President Trump’s tariff policies has forced them to hold off on a rate cut. However, thus far, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell’s concern that the tariffs could restart inflation has been largely unfounded. In fact, recent economic data has shown inflation significantly cooling, with the current rate hovering very close to the central bank’s two percent target. Additionally, some recent economic data suggests the American economy could even be facing deflationary pressures, which would generally push the Federal Reserve to cut rates.

In recent months, President Trump has blasted Chairman Powell, calling him a “loser” and arguing that the central bank chief “has always been ‘Too Late'” on adjusting rates to changing economic conditions. Notably, in April, Trump indicated he may soon move to dismiss Powell as Federal Reserve chairman, though that will likely be contingent on a pending court case.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad
More From The Pulse

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

5 hours ago
News

FEMA’s Coordination Chief Has Resigned. Here’s Why:

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Response Coordination Center, Jeremy Greenberg, has resigned from the agency. President Donald J. Trump is moving to close FEMA entirely.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Jeremy Greenberg, David Richardson, FEMA leadership, and President Trump.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Greenberg’s resignation was confirmed last week, as the U.S. enters peak disaster season.

💬KEY QUOTE: “FEMA has the right leadership in place to continue to be laser focused on our mission and are fully prepared for Hurricane season.” — FEMA.

🎯IMPACT: The resignation raises concerns about FEMA’s readiness during a critical period for disaster response.

IN FULL

Jeremy Greenberg, who has led the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Response Coordination Center since 2020, confirmed his resignation last week. His departure comes as FEMA faces a wave of high-level resignations, with interim leader David Richardson currently at the helm.

Greenberg’s resignation comes during the height of the U.S. natural disaster season, which includes hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. The National Response Coordination Center is critical for managing federal disaster response efforts, coordinating resources and personnel from multiple agencies and governments. For instance, during Hurricane Helene last year, the center managed evacuation orders across multiple states, tracked FEMA resources, and coordinated with agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Transportation.

Greenberg’s team was activated three days before Helene’s landfall to ensure a coordinated response. However, some accused FEMA of blocking supplies, including tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was trying to hand out Starlink devices to locals to ensure they had Internet access.

Greenberg stated he will remain at FEMA for two more weeks but referred additional questions to agency leadership. FEMA has not disclosed who will lead the disaster coordination office after his departure.

FEMA confirmed that Greenberg would be leaving his position and stated, “FEMA has the right leadership in place to continue to be laser focused on our mission and are fully prepared for Hurricane season.”

President Donald J. Trump has announced plans to eliminate FEMA by December, with a council of governors, cabinet members, and emergency management experts tasked with recommending changes to the agency by mid-November. This follows scandals under the former Joe Biden government in which FEMA personnel were found to be withholding aid from Trump supporters in the wake of disasters.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Bill Koplitz.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

6 hours ago
Health
NatSec

This Bill Would Pay Back Troops Fired by Biden for Refusing Vax Mandate.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) has introduced a bill to provide back pay to troops impacted by former President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Sen. Tim Sheehy, former President Joe Biden, and affected U.S. service members.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The legislation was announced on Tuesday, June 17, 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This unacceptable action by the last administration robbed servicemembers of the pay and benefits they rightfully earned in service to our country,” said Sen. Sheehy.

🎯IMPACT: The bill aims to restore pay and benefits to nearly 100,000 service members and their families affected by the mandate.

IN FULL

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT) will introduce legislation on Tuesday that would, if passed and signed into law, provide back pay to the thousands of troops negatively affected by former President Joe Biden’s COVID military vaccine mandate. The legislation is designed to restore pay and benefits to thousands of U.S. service members discharged for noncompliance with the vaccination requirement under the former Biden government.

“This unacceptable action by the last administration robbed servicemembers of the pay and benefits they rightfully earned in service to our country,” Sheehy said in a statement. He added: “My legislation will right this wrong by building on President Trump’s Executive Order to reinstate those servicemembers, ensuring we fulfill our government’s sacred obligations to the men and women who put their lives on the line in defense of our freedoms.”

According to the Montana Republican, nearly 8,500 active-duty troops were dismissed for noncompliance with Biden’s mandate, while the Army Reserve and National Guard lost over 60,000 more. In total, around 100,000 servicemembers and their families were impacted, with many losing pay, benefits, and retirement credit.

Although Congress repealed the mandate in the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and courts later ruled the mandate unconstitutional, many former troops are still struggling to reclaim lost compensation and recognition. Sheehy’s bill would allow those affected to opt into a claims process for back pay and entitlements under the Military Pay Act, with eligibility contingent on meeting specified criteria. The relief would be in addition to benefits granted under President Donald J. Trump’s executive order reinstating servicemembers discharged over the mandate.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad
musk

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

7 hours ago
Lawfare
News

‘X’ Is Suing New York. Here’s Why:

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Elon Musk’s X Corp. has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a New York law requiring social media companies to disclose how they define and moderate politically sensitive content categories.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: X Corp., New York Attorney General Letitia James, and New York lawmakers.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York following the law’s enactment.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The First Amendment protects both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all,” the complaint emphasizes.

🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit seeks to prevent enforcement of the law, citing allegedly unconstitutional compelled speech and government overreach.

IN FULL

X Corp., the company behind Elon Musk’s social media platform X, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a New York law that mandates social media companies publicly disclose how they define and moderate politically sensitive content categories such as “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “extremism.”

The complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, targets Senate Bill S895B, which X Corp. argues is an unconstitutional intrusion into editorial freedom. The law, the company contends, is “an impermissible attempt by the State to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process.”

Key to the lawsuit is the “Content Category Report Provisions,” which compel platforms to disclose whether, and how, they moderate categories of speech. Non-compliance could result in daily fines of up to $15,000 and lawsuits from the New York Attorney General, Letitia James (D). X Corp. asserts that the law violates both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8, of the New York Constitution.

The lawsuit also highlights a similar California statute that X successfully challenged, where the Ninth Circuit ruled that such disclosure mandates likely compel non-commercial speech and fail strict scrutiny. “The government cannot do indirectly what [it] is barred from doing directly,” the complaint states, referencing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

X Corp. is asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional, enjoin its enforcement, and award legal fees. “The Content Category Report provisions compel every covered social media company to reveal its policy opinion about contentious issues, such as what constitutes hate speech or misinformation and whether to moderate such expression,” the company complains.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

7 hours ago
Politics

The Senate GOP Is Making Big Changes to Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Republicans unveiled a new proposal for Medicaid reforms within President Donald J. Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” aiming to implement stricter eligibility and work requirements while limiting states’ use of health care provider taxes to qualify for additional funding.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Finance Committee members, and President Donald Trump.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Senate Finance Committee revealed the proposal on Monday evening.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The things that we’re doing are going to strengthen it, improve it, and make it available to people for whom it was intended.” – John Thune.

🎯IMPACT: The reforms aim to reduce federal Medicaid spending by over $700 billion, with Senate Republicans arguing it will curb unnecessary spending while preserving benefits for vulnerable Americans.

IN FULL

Senate Republicans are pushing to enact more expansive Medicaid reforms in President Donald J. Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” surpassing the changes implemented in the House-passed version with further tightened eligibility and stricter work requirements. The Senate Finance Committee unveiled its proposed changes Monday evening, including measures to limit states’ use of health care provider taxes to secure additional federal funding.

The Senate’s proposal is projected to exceed the $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending reductions included in the House version of the reconciliation bill. Republican leaders have touted these reforms as the most significant reduction to mandatory spending in a budget bill in U.S. history.

“[T]his is a program that’s ripe for reform. The things that we’re doing are going to strengthen it, improve it, and make it available to people for whom it was intended,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said in a recent interview, adding: “It shouldn’t be available for illegal immigrants. There are people who are ineligible. There are people, able-bodied males who are of working age; there ought to be a work requirement attached to it. These are all reforms to a program that was desperately in need of reform.”

The Senate plan targets provider taxes, reducing the cap states can impose on health care providers to receive federal Medicaid funding. Starting in 2027, the cap will gradually decrease to 3.5 percent by 2031. Additionally, the Senate proposal expands work requirements to include adults with children aged 14 or older, a step beyond the House version, which exempted adults with dependent children entirely.

However, not all Senate Republicans support the far-reaching reforms. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) panned the proposal, arguing that the provider tax changes would essentially “defund rural hospitals” to pay for “Biden ‘Green New Deal’ subsidies.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad
Purchased by The National Pulse

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

8 hours ago
Crime
News

Antifa Sharpshooter Charged Over Trump Assassination Threat.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A former Coast Guard officer and self-described Antifa member, Peter Stinson, was arrested for allegedly threatening to assassinate President Donald J. Trump.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Peter Stinson, President Trump, and investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) counter-terrorism task force.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Stinson was arrested on Monday, June 16, 2025, in Virginia following an FBI investigation.

💬KEY QUOTE: Stinson “self-identified as a member of Antifa”, investigators said.

🎯IMPACT: If convicted, Stinson could face up to five years in prison, adding to a series of recent threats against the president and other officials.

IN FULL

Peter Stinson, a former Coast Guard officer and self-identified Antifa member, has been arrested for allegedly threatening to assassinate President Donald J. Trump. According to a 19-page Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affidavit, Stinson made multiple threats online involving firearms, knives, and poisoning.

Stinson, who served in the Coast Guard for 33 years until 2021, was trained as a sharpshooter and worked as an instructor at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He is also listed as a coordinator for the MayDay Movement, a group advocating for the impeachment and removal of President Trump as the 47th president. Investigators noted that Stinson posted graphic threats on social media and referenced “8647,” a phrase shared online by former FBI Director James Comey, which was interpreted as a threat against Trump.

The affidavit also highlighted Stinson’s online comments following the July 2024 attempted assassination of Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks. Stinson allegedly described the failed attempt as “a missed opportunity.” He also wrote that he lacked the “necessary skills” for such an act, but later contradicted himself, implying he did have the ability.

Convictions for threatening a president can carry up to five years in prison, though some sentences have been lighter. Stinson’s case is the latest in a string of incidents involving threats against President Trump, including the foiled assassination attempt by Crooks and another attempt by pro-Ukraine activist Ryan Routh.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

8 hours ago
Election Integrity
Lawfare

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Declares ‘Big Win’ Despite Jury Finding He Defamed Coomer.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal jury found MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell personally guilty of defaming Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee, and ordered him to pay $2.3 million in damages. However, MyPillow was found not liable.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Mike Lindell, Eric Coomer, MyPillow, FrankSpeech, and Dominion Voting Systems.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The verdict was delivered on Monday, June 16, 2025, in Denver, Colorado.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This is a huge victory for our country,” said Lindell, referring to the jury not holding MyPillow liable. He added: “The big win is, you cannot attack USA companies and expect it’s going to work.”

🎯IMPACT: Lindell says he plans to appeal the verdict and damages awarded, which fell well short of the $62.7 million that Coomer had sought.

IN FULL

A federal jury has ordered Mike Lindell to pay $2.3 million in damages for defaming Eric Coomer, a former Dominion Voting Systems employee. The amount is significantly less than the $62.7 million Coomer sought, as the jury did not find Lindell’s companies, MyPillow and FrankSpeech, liable for the claims made by others online.

“This is a huge victory for our country,” Lindell said after the verdict was issued on Monday. Emphasizing that his companies were not held liable, he added: “The big win is, you cannot attack USA companies and expect it’s going to work.” Still, the MyPillow CEO said he plans to appeal the verdict and the damages awarded, insisting he will continue to discuss allegations of election irregularities publicly.

According to the verdict, the jury found three statements, two made by Lindell and one broadcast on FrankSpeech, to be defamatory. In one instance, Lindell called Coomer “disgusting, treasonous, and a traitor.” Another statement accused Coomer of being part of “the biggest crime this world has ever seen.”

Coomer’s legal team argued Lindell ignored opportunities to reconsider his claims. Meanwhile, Lindell maintained his belief in Coomer’s alleged wrongdoing and criticized the trial as an attack on free speech. Notably, the sincere belief that a claim is valid can be a legal defense in a defamation case, meaning Lindell may have at least one viable legal avenue for appeal.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

9 hours ago
Health
News

Britain Just Voted to Decriminalize Abortion Up to Birth.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion for the full term of a pregnancy.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Labour MPs Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy, along with 176 MPs backing Antoniazzi’s amendment and 108 MPs supporting Creasy’s proposal.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The debate and vote took place in the UK Parliament on June 17.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment of any woman who ends their own pregnancy.” – Tonia Antoniazzi

🎯IMPACT: The amendments significantly alter the legal framework surrounding abortion in England and Wales, impacting women, healthcare providers, and the justice system.

IN FULL

Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom voted 379 to 137 to decriminalize abortion up to birth. Leftist Labour MPs Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy each proposed amendments with differing approaches to the issue.

Antoniazzi’s amendment, which passed, seeks to remove the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment for women who kill their unborn babies after 24 weeks, which is the current effective limit. She stated that her proposal would not technically alter the time limit for abortion, but with mothers no longer liable for prosecution if they break it, it will be largely meaningless.

“The 24 limit remains. Abortions still require the approval of signatures of two doctors, and women would still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act,” Antoniazzi claimed, but noted that women who do get an abortion after 24 weeks will face no criminal prosecution. Medical professionals or abusive partners who terminate a pregnancy could still face criminal charges.

Creasy’s amendment, which was not voted on, went further by aiming to enshrine abortion access as a human right.

Under current law in England and Wales, abortion is technically illegal, but permitted up to 24 weeks of pregnancy for effectively any reason provided two doctors approve it, in a process that has become essentially a formality. Beyond this period, abortions are allowed only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the woman’s life is in danger or there are severe fetal abnormalities. The most recent data shows that 252,122 abortions were reported in 2022, the highest number recorded.

If Creasy’s amendment had passed, it could have essentially legalised abortion for all nine months of a pregnancy. Canada, a fellow Commonwealth country, has similar rules around abortion, where there is no criminal law against it during any period of a pregnancy, though there are rules within the medical profession itself.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Image by Melimama.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

10 hours ago
News
War

Here’s What VP Vance Had to Say About Trump and Iran…

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Vice President J.D. Vance defended President Donald J. Trump’s position on Iran, emphasizing Trump’s consistent stance against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Vice President Vance, President Trump, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Iranian leadership.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Statements were made on Monday and Tuesday, with Trump addressing the issue on Truth Social and during a Situation Room meeting in Washington, D.C.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The President has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military’s focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.” – J.D. Vance

🎯IMPACT: The U.S. and Israel have aerial superiority over Iran, with the Trump administration underscoring its commitment to thwarting Iranian nuclear ambitions

IN FULL

Vice President J.D. Vance on Monday defended President Donald J. Trump’s position on Iran in response to “crazy” accusations circulating on social media. Writing on X, Vance stated, “Look, I’m seeing this from the inside, and am admittedly biased towards our president (and my friend), but there’s a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue.”

Vance noted Trump “has been amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” adding that Trump has encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with Iran to achieve this goal, emphasizing that “Iran cannot have uranium enrichment” and that the America First leader has made it clear this would happen “one of two ways—the easy way or the ‘other’ way.”

Addressing confusion over “civilian nuclear power” and “uranium enrichment,” Vance explained that these are distinct issues. He noted that Iran could pursue civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but has rejected this option. “Meanwhile, they’ve enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose,” he stressed, pointing to violations of non-proliferation obligations as identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Trump, on Tuesday, called for an “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” from Iran on Truth Social, following Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding,” Trump wrote, referring to Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.”

The United States has been deploying assets to the Middle East and reportedly assisted Israel in shooting down incoming Iranian missiles. Trump has emphasized that the U.S. and Israel maintain “complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

11 hours ago
Economy

Working Class Hero: Blue-Collar Wages Surging Under Trump.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Blue-collar workers have experienced a 1.7 percent real wage increase in the first five months of President Donald J. Trump’s second term, the largest increase for any presidential administration in nearly 60 years.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, blue-collar workers, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The wage growth occurred across the United States from December 2024 to May 2025.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We’ve seen real wages for hourly workers, non-supervisory workers, rise almost 2 percent in the first five months. … No president has done that before.” – Scott Bessent.

🎯IMPACT: Blue-collar workers are seeing significant wage growth, reversing decades of stagnation and decline under previous administrations.

IN FULL

Blue-collar workers saw real wage growth of 1.7 percent in the first five months of President Donald J. Trump’s second term, marking the largest increase for any administration in nearly 60 years. The wage growth sharply contrasts with the negative growth experienced under former President Joe Biden, according to the latest U.S. Department of the Treasury data.

Since Richard Nixon in 1969, Trump is the only president to record positive growth for blue-collar workers in the first five months of his term. During his first term, Trump also achieved a 1.3 percent increase. The current wage growth recovery follows a 1.7 percent decline during Biden’s initial months in office, when inflation outpaced earnings.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent highlighted the achievement, stating, “We’ve seen real wages for hourly workers, non-supervisory workers, rise almost two percent in the first five months. … No President has done that before.” He attributed the improvement to falling inflation, which has increased take-home pay, as well as Trump’s focus on manufacturing and efforts to remove illegal immigrants from the workforce. “Biden opened the border, and it was flooded,” Bessent said, adding: “And for working Americans, that’s a disaster because it’s pressure on their wages.”

Trump’s tariff policy has also been designed to make American workers more competitive relative to cheap labor overseas, causing several major companies to reshore production to the U.S.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines blue-collar workers as non-supervisory and production workers. Year-to-date wage growth for this group from December 2024 to May 2025 is more than double the 0.8 percent growth seen during Nixon’s administration. Comparatively, Barack Obama’s first term saw a 0.3 percent decline, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush each recorded a 0.6 percent decline, and Ronald Reagan saw a 0.9 percent decline. George H.W. Bush oversaw a 3.0 percent decline, while Jimmy Carter’s administration recorded zero growth.

Trump’s administration is also pushing for the passage of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which it argues will further boost blue-collar wage growth. The bill includes measures such as eliminating federal income taxes not only on tips, but on overtime pay for over 80 million hourly workers, while providing tax incentives for manufacturers to build factories in the United States.

These initiatives are expected to create up to six million jobs in construction and manufacturing, reversing decades of offshoring.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.

WE ARE 100% INDEPENDENT AND READER-FUNDED. FOR A GUARANTEED AD-FREE EXPERIENCE AND TO SUPPORT REAL NEWS, PLEASE SIGN UP HERE, TODAY.

11 hours ago
War

Snap Poll Shows Surprising Support for ‘Ground Troops’ Against Iran.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A new Democracy Institute poll shows a majority of 2024 U.S. voters—especially working-class and Trump-aligned—oppose going to war with Iran, including deploying ground troops. Still, the number of people who support the idea of ground troops is surprisingly high.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: 1,500 U.S. voters were polled between June 14–16, 2025, including 1,250 working class voters and 1,150 Trump 2024 voters.

📍WHEN & WHERE: National survey conducted in the U.S., June 14–16, 2025.

🎯IMPACT: The results signal potential political danger for any administration or candidate pushing military escalation against Iran.

IN FULL

A national Democracy Institute poll has revealed that most American voters, especially those who support Donald Trump, are staunchly opposed to a war with Iran involving ground troops. Just over one in three Americans, however, appear to support the move.

The survey, conducted June 14–16, 2025, asked whether the U.S. should go to war—including committing boots on the ground—against Iran. Only 35 percent of all 2024 voters said “yes,” while a majority—53 percent—said “no.”

Among working-class voters, resistance to war is higher. Just 29 percent support the idea of war with Iran, while 60 percent are opposed.

The opposition peaks among Trump 2024 voters, where only 26 percent favor a war, and a commanding 64 percent are against it. These figures underscore a continued America-First philosophy within Trump’s base, echoing themes from his 2016 and 2024 campaigns: putting America first, avoiding endless wars, and focusing on domestic renewal.

The poll’s margin of error sits at ±3 percent across the groups surveyed, which included 1,500 national voters, 1,250 working-class voters, and 1,150 Trump 2024 voters. It reflects a growing skepticism not only about regime change abroad, but also about Washington’s handling of foreign entanglements more broadly.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive email analyses: www.thenationalpulse.com/upgrade

show less
show more
By Popular Demand.
The National Pulse Now has an on-site comments section for members. Sign up today and be part of the conversation in our community of almost 15,000.
Pulse Ad
Pulse Ad