23 posts from Saturday, July 11, 2026
Video transcript
because their cost is too high they will lower those costs. I don't think that is how it works. That is exactly how it works. It is your specific job. Sorry to belabor this, I know so many people on both sides of the aisle have have asked you about the department's decision to remove nursing, teaching, social work and other critical occupations from the definition of professional degrees and capping their ability to receive federal loans. I know that in my home state of Minnesota we're expecting to face a shortage of 30,000 nurses in the next four years and I know that your home state of North Carolina it is expected to see a shortage of 15,000, 13,000. Our nurses obviously are limited in their capacity, they're overworked and they're worried so I know you said the decision is final but I'm just trying to figure out if you can answer why did you move forward with an action that you know is going to be creating a problem or worsening a problem that already exists. Well first of all let me correct one thing. We did not remove any of these professions from a professional category, they were never never characterized in the law, in the statute, as a professional category. So as these caps were put into place and many professions were then being reviewed as to what constituted a professional category guided by the definition of a professional degree from Congress. So that was the overview that the that we looked at as we are writing this new rulemaking with the with the overall goal of putting caps in place that are going to reduce the cost of college. How is that happening? Well I have a couple of articles here already that there are colleges. What do they say? They are saying that they have that they are looking at reducing the cost of their graduate program. I know but looking is not addressing the problem that we are currently seeing. What I am asking you is that you've made a decision that is currently making the problem worse. That is not correct let me let me push back on that. Are you saying the numbers in Minnesota that we're seeing or in North Carolina are not real? Well what I'm saying to you is there are shortages in those states primarily in the undergraduate nursing program which is not affected by this new rule and this new cap. Undergraduate programs are not affected at all. I know but can you... So the shortage is not a result of this cap being put on. The shortage of nursing is that we don't have enough applicants into the nursing programs that that are you know coming through our universities. So instead of helping with the problem you've decided to make it worse? I don't think you were in when I talked about another way to get to an RN and expedited program you can get a two-year certificate and then take the exam to become an RN. My sisters or nurses I do know how those things work. I'm asking you about this specific classification that you created that lowers the cap. We didn't remove that from a professional designation. I know but address the cap issue when it comes to the... I just did because it does not impact. But you said you were trying to lower the cost of tuition how does that happen? Because there are already colleges that are lowering the cost of their graduate programs. What are those colleges? There's a college in in California University of California in Irvine and Purdue University in Indiana. And is it for business or for nursing? They have lowered them right now and for their business programs. But we're talking about nursing ma'am. Well I hope that they'll look at other programs. Because business is not something that you had an impact on. I don't have control over which programs they're doing but if they have fewer applicants coming into their universities and they realize part of the reason is because their cost is too high they will lower those costs. I don't think that is how it works. That is not how it works. Your specific job is to try to make sure as the head of the Department of Education to make education accessible for Americans. When you create policies that make education unreachable for Americans that want that education then you are failing at your job. No when there have not been caps on programs and universities have been allowed to charge whatever they wanted and the student loan program allowed them to borrow up to whatever that university said was the cost it was time to take action and to put caps in place that are going to start. Yeah but your caps only create a funnel through the private borrowing system. That's not true. Yes that is what it will do. How else would somebody if I wanted to get a professional degree and I'm capped and I can't borrow then I have to from a public source then I have to go private and that is what your administration is really trying to do is trying to help enrich others on the backs of the American people.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Video transcript
because their cost is too high they will lower those costs. I don't think that is how it works. That is exactly how it works. It is your specific job. Sorry to belabor this, I know so many people on both sides of the aisle have have asked you about the department's decision to remove nursing, teaching, social work and other critical occupations from the definition of professional degrees and capping their ability to receive federal loans. I know that in my home state of Minnesota we're expecting to face a shortage of 30,000 nurses in the next four years and I know that your home state of North Carolina it is expected to see a shortage of 15,000, 13,000. Our nurses obviously are limited in their capacity, they're overworked and they're worried so I know you said the decision is final but I'm just trying to figure out if you can answer why did you move forward with an action that you know is going to be creating a problem or worsening a problem that already exists. Well first of all let me correct one thing. We did not remove any of these professions from a professional category, they were never never characterized in the law, in the statute, as a professional category. So as these caps were put into place and many professions were then being reviewed as to what constituted a professional category guided by the definition of a professional degree from Congress. So that was the overview that the that we looked at as we are writing this new rulemaking with the with the overall goal of putting caps in place that are going to reduce the cost of college. How is that happening? Well I have a couple of articles here already that there are colleges. What do they say? They are saying that they have that they are looking at reducing the cost of their graduate program. I know but looking is not addressing the problem that we are currently seeing. What I am asking you is that you've made a decision that is currently making the problem worse. That is not correct let me let me push back on that. Are you saying the numbers in Minnesota that we're seeing or in North Carolina are not real? Well what I'm saying to you is there are shortages in those states primarily in the undergraduate nursing program which is not affected by this new rule and this new cap. Undergraduate programs are not affected at all. I know but can you... So the shortage is not a result of this cap being put on. The shortage of nursing is that we don't have enough applicants into the nursing programs that that are you know coming through our universities. So instead of helping with the problem you've decided to make it worse? I don't think you were in when I talked about another way to get to an RN and expedited program you can get a two-year certificate and then take the exam to become an RN. My sisters or nurses I do know how those things work. I'm asking you about this specific classification that you created that lowers the cap. We didn't remove that from a professional designation. I know but address the cap issue when it comes to the... I just did because it does not impact. But you said you were trying to lower the cost of tuition how does that happen? Because there are already colleges that are lowering the cost of their graduate programs. What are those colleges? There's a college in in California University of California in Irvine and Purdue University in Indiana. And is it for business or for nursing? They have lowered them right now and for their business programs. But we're talking about nursing ma'am. Well I hope that they'll look at other programs. Because business is not something that you had an impact on. I don't have control over which programs they're doing but if they have fewer applicants coming into their universities and they realize part of the reason is because their cost is too high they will lower those costs. I don't think that is how it works. That is not how it works. Your specific job is to try to make sure as the head of the Department of Education to make education accessible for Americans. When you create policies that make education unreachable for Americans that want that education then you are failing at your job. No when there have not been caps on programs and universities have been allowed to charge whatever they wanted and the student loan program allowed them to borrow up to whatever that university said was the cost it was time to take action and to put caps in place that are going to start. Yeah but your caps only create a funnel through the private borrowing system. That's not true. Yes that is what it will do. How else would somebody if I wanted to get a professional degree and I'm capped and I can't borrow then I have to from a public source then I have to go private and that is what your administration is really trying to do is trying to help enrich others on the backs of the American people.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Video transcript
I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for Secretary of State. I yield back. May I respond? You may, sir. Well, first of all, your regret for voting for me confirms I'm doing a good job based on what I know. Well, that's just a flippant statement, Mr. Secretary. Can I respond, Mr. Chairman? You may. I didn't ask. Senator, please let the Secretary have the floor. I'd be happy to, but then I can respond to his response. Your time's up, Senator, and woefully used, I might add. Your remarks do not represent the view of this committee. Well, I can't respond to everything he said because much of these are untrue, but I'll go through a few. First of all, I'm actually very proud of the work we've done with USAID. For example, I don't regret cutting $10 million for male circumcisions in Mozambique. I don't know how that makes us stronger and more prosperous as a nation. I don't regret psychosocial support services. I raised Sudan, Mr. Secretary, not Mozambique. Senator, I'd ask you to suspend. You had seven straight minutes. I chose to use my time that way, Mr. Chairman. That's my right to use my time that way. Please suspend, Secretary Rubio. Well, I can go on. I mean, there's other things here. We spent $227,000 for Big Cat's YouTube channel from USAID. We spent $14 million for social cohesion in Mali, whatever the hell that means. So I can go on and on. I got the list here, and there's more that I didn't even bring the whole list. In the case of El Salvador, absolutely, absolutely. We deported gang members, gang members, including the one you had a margarita with. And that guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gang banger. And the evidence is going to be clear in the days of time you're going to see who you want to defend. Look, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio has the floor. Mr. Chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated comments like that. Secretary Rubio has the floor. You had your time. Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States because he hasn't done it under oath. Here's another point, okay? There is a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge and the judicial branch cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy. No judge can tell me how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I have under no obligation to share that with a judiciary branch. Just like a judge cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister of Russia, they cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister or the president of El Salvador. And if I did negotiate with them, which we have responded to them, and we've told them we've had communications with the president of El Salvador. I am under no obligation, under our division of powers in this country, to share with a judicial branch how I conducted diplomacy of the United States. It would actually be counterproductive. If I started sharing with courts, or frankly, with the media, my conversations with foreign leaders and all of their details, no foreign leader would talk to me again, and we would break trust with them. So I have complied with every court order. What I won't comply with is in order to disclose what I'm saying and what we're talking about with a foreign leader, because then they won't talk to me. Diplomacy doesn't work that way. About the student visas, let me say this. I don't deport anybody, and I don't snatch anybody. The State Department does not have officers in the street snatching everybody. What I do is revoke visas, and it's very simple. A visa is not a right, it is a privilege. People apply for student visas to come into the United States and study, and if you tell me that you're coming to the United States to lead campus crusades, to take over libraries, and burn down, try to burn down buildings and acts of violence, we're not going to give you a visa. Is that what Ms. Osler did? We're not going to give you a visa. Is that what she did? Come on, Mr. Secretary. And every single one of these cases, the factors are different. You're just blowing smoke here now, Senator. The bottom line is if you're coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa and we fight you, we will revoke you, and we're going to do more. There are more coming. We're going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities. People are paying money. Students pay money to go to school, and they have to walk to a bunch of lunatics who are here on student visas disrupting the foreign policy of the United States. I want to do more. I hope we can buy more of these people. That's pathetic, Mr. Secretary. In fact, the other day, the other day, some guy's led a riot. I forgot what university it was, and I asked, please, can you find the arrest records of all the people that were arrested at that riot at that campus, because if any of them have a visa, we're going to revoke it. I feel so much safer when you lock up people like Ms. Osler, Ms. Secretary. We've had enough time on the subject. Thank you very much. And we're going to move to Senator Lee.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Video transcript
I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for Secretary of State. I yield back. May I respond? You may, sir. Well, first of all, your regret for voting for me confirms I'm doing a good job based on what I know. Well, that's just a flippant statement, Mr. Secretary. Can I respond, Mr. Chairman? You may. I didn't ask. Senator, please let the Secretary have the floor. I'd be happy to, but then I can respond to his response. Your time's up, Senator, and woefully used, I might add. Your remarks do not represent the view of this committee. Well, I can't respond to everything he said because much of these are untrue, but I'll go through a few. First of all, I'm actually very proud of the work we've done with USAID. For example, I don't regret cutting $10 million for male circumcisions in Mozambique. I don't know how that makes us stronger and more prosperous as a nation. I don't regret psychosocial support services. I raised Sudan, Mr. Secretary, not Mozambique. Senator, I'd ask you to suspend. You had seven straight minutes. I chose to use my time that way, Mr. Chairman. That's my right to use my time that way. Please suspend, Secretary Rubio. Well, I can go on. I mean, there's other things here. We spent $227,000 for Big Cat's YouTube channel from USAID. We spent $14 million for social cohesion in Mali, whatever the hell that means. So I can go on and on. I got the list here, and there's more that I didn't even bring the whole list. In the case of El Salvador, absolutely, absolutely. We deported gang members, gang members, including the one you had a margarita with. And that guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gang banger. And the evidence is going to be clear in the days of time you're going to see who you want to defend. Look, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio has the floor. Mr. Chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated comments like that. Secretary Rubio has the floor. You had your time. Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States because he hasn't done it under oath. Here's another point, okay? There is a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge and the judicial branch cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy. No judge can tell me how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I have under no obligation to share that with a judiciary branch. Just like a judge cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister of Russia, they cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister or the president of El Salvador. And if I did negotiate with them, which we have responded to them, and we've told them we've had communications with the president of El Salvador. I am under no obligation, under our division of powers in this country, to share with a judicial branch how I conducted diplomacy of the United States. It would actually be counterproductive. If I started sharing with courts, or frankly, with the media, my conversations with foreign leaders and all of their details, no foreign leader would talk to me again, and we would break trust with them. So I have complied with every court order. What I won't comply with is in order to disclose what I'm saying and what we're talking about with a foreign leader, because then they won't talk to me. Diplomacy doesn't work that way. About the student visas, let me say this. I don't deport anybody, and I don't snatch anybody. The State Department does not have officers in the street snatching everybody. What I do is revoke visas, and it's very simple. A visa is not a right, it is a privilege. People apply for student visas to come into the United States and study, and if you tell me that you're coming to the United States to lead campus crusades, to take over libraries, and burn down, try to burn down buildings and acts of violence, we're not going to give you a visa. Is that what Ms. Osler did? We're not going to give you a visa. Is that what she did? Come on, Mr. Secretary. And every single one of these cases, the factors are different. You're just blowing smoke here now, Senator. The bottom line is if you're coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa and we fight you, we will revoke you, and we're going to do more. There are more coming. We're going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities. People are paying money. Students pay money to go to school, and they have to walk to a bunch of lunatics who are here on student visas disrupting the foreign policy of the United States. I want to do more. I hope we can buy more of these people. That's pathetic, Mr. Secretary. In fact, the other day, the other day, some guy's led a riot. I forgot what university it was, and I asked, please, can you find the arrest records of all the people that were arrested at that riot at that campus, because if any of them have a visa, we're going to revoke it. I feel so much safer when you lock up people like Ms. Osler, Ms. Secretary. We've had enough time on the subject. Thank you very much. And we're going to move to Senator Lee.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
This is the horrible front of the White House, and it’s been like that for years. The condition is deplorable, just like our Country was when I inherited it from Sleepy Joe Biden. The Radical Left Dumocrats criticize me for spending so much time bringing our White House back to the Glory of 100 years ago — Actually, it will be far better than that, and they will not shame us for bringing our Great and Brilliant Monuments to the past and the future back to levels never seen before. This is what we are doing all over Washington, D.C., and, in different ways, with our Country, itself! The White House, as you can see in the before pictures attached, was an embarrassment. Believe it or not, these pictures were of the Main Entrance. In a short period of time, it will be a Symbol of Extraordinary Beauty and Pride! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
The Radical Left Lunatics, often referred to as Dumocrats, have lost control of their Party. They are being led by loud and unattractive people who have totally lost their way. Hopefully, they will fight back, and not let this sick, Communist ideology, take over America! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
I would often say in Speeches, and otherwise, America will never be a Socialist Country, and I was 100% correct, the Dumocrats skipped Socialism, and went all the way down to Communism. AMERICA WILL NEVER BE A COMMUNIST COUNTRY! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
With only bad Press and Fake News, I won the Presidential Election IN A LANDSLIDE. Therefore, the Media has NO CREDIBILITY! If it did, that Historic Win would not have been possible. I want them to gain the Respect which they have so sadly lost, and help, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
It’s incredible! I win the Election IN A LANDSLIDE against the entire Dumocrat Party, and almost 100% negative news — I won 86% of the Counties in America, 2,750 to 525, won the Electoral College, 312 to 226, was the first Republican in decades to win the Popular Vote, and decisively won all seven Swing States, all 50 States shifted toward the Republican Party for the first time, EVER — and I had to run against not one Candidate, but two, Sleepy Joe and Kamala, which has never happened before, against almost 100% negative press and Fake News, all of them willing to do anything that I lose — and yet especially Maggot Hagerman, one of the most unattractive people in the News “Business,” and her lightweight assistant, Jonathan Swan, and The Failing New York Times itself, which spends all of its energy on negative stories about me. All I do is WIN, often against all odds but, after the Big Election Success, there’s no, “Gee, he won, he did a great job!” There’s no saying, “Maybe we were wrong about him, the people were right” or, maybe, “Congratulations, we wish you Great Success for our Country!” No, but after I won the Election FOR THE THIRD TIME, the same people start immediately, all over again — The Failing New York Times, The LOST ITS WAY Wall Street Journal, MSDNC (They changed their name to MSNOW because nobody was watching!), Ignorant CNN, with some of the Worst No Name Anchors in History, and all three Fake Networks, ABC, CBS, NBC. All of their Readership, Ratings, and Viewership, are “tanking” because the Public understands they are, as I have said right from the beginning, “FAKE NEWS!” They have no credibility, or it would have been impossible for me to win with only bad stories, especially in a Historic Landslide. Think of it, this was my opposition! If the Election was held again today, I would win by even more — Actually, much more! The Dumocrats don’t have what it takes, their Policies are wrong, and they are, generally, stupid people. They are going COMMUNIST because they are a desperately “sinking ship,” and there’s not a thing they can do about it. Instead of writing inaccurate, false articles, for over 10 years now, shouldn’t it be time that they say, “We give up, we can’t beat him, there seems nothing we can do.” Isn’t it time they say, “TRUMP IS THE BEST POLITICAL ATHLETE OF ALL TIME! CONGRATULATIONS, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE BEATEN US FOR 10 YEARS, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO WASTE OUR TIME FIGHTING YOU ANY LONGER. WE CAN’T WIN. DO A GREAT JOB, SIR, RUNNING OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
0:00
0:00
Maggot Hagerman has covered me incorrectly for ten years. Her book is a joke! 90% of it is Fake News. She has made a living off her bad reporting, and will pay the price when our Multi Billion Dollar Lawsuit against The Failing New York Times gets to Court, which should not be that long. I don’t mind bad press, if they are right. I do mind Fake Reporting, like what’s in her boring book, and like she’s done for eleven years, with only one aim in mind, to have Trump lose Elections but, as I sit in the Oval Office and ponder, that hasn’t worked out too well. Maggot is a loser! If she ever wrote the true story about me, it would actually be quite boring, but loaded with lots of SUCCESS. Also, I just finished a perfect physical at Walter Reed, I do it every six months, and I requested another Cognitive Test, the only President to do so, three times, and I aced them all — Got every question right. Few people in Washington, D.C., could do so, including Maggot and her flunky associate, Jonathan Swan. I would be willing to bet they couldn’t get 50% of the questions right. Anyway, don’t buy their book, it’s garbage! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
Wow! Palm Beach has always been a special place to me. So Beautiful!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP
Wow! Palm Beach has always been a special place to me. So Beautiful!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME! Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran - PRAISE BE TO ALLAH! President DONALD J. TRUMP
I was able to cut a MUCH BETTER DEAL for America, and by so doing, will be allowing the new and spectacular Gordie Howe International Bridge, spanning Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, to open on July 27th, as scheduled. The original deal made was unacceptable to me! The new deal is great, and fair. Thank you and congratulations to the Canadian Government. May we both have many years of success with this wonderful new development!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
1000 Missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands of more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat, pronounced in many corners of the Globe, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, the sitting President of the United States of America, in this case, ME! Orders have already been given, and the U.S. Military is ready, willing, and able, for a one year period of time, subject to extension, to completely decimate and destroy all areas of Iran - PRAISE BE TO ALLAH! President DONALD J. TRUMP
0:00
0:00
Jack Smith's team may have exposed classified info while probing Trump for allegedly doing the same: https://justthenews.com/government/congress/jack-smiths-team-may-have-exposed-classified-info-while-probing-trump-allegedly
0:00
0:00
Video transcript
>> Thank you very much. We have to get a picture of this, come on. It's so beautiful. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Welcome Mr. President. Yeah, most of the room is. >> Yes, that's right. You're doing a good job, by the way. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. I'm the commander of the state, please. >> I look forward to seeing you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. En son a veg.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Video transcript
>> Thank you very much. We have to get a picture of this, come on. It's so beautiful. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Welcome Mr. President. Yeah, most of the room is. >> Yes, that's right. You're doing a good job, by the way. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Welcome, Mr. President. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. I'm the commander of the state, please. >> I look forward to seeing you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. I don't want to hurt you. En son a veg.
Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.
Apple to invest $30 billion in US chip manufacturing: https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/apple-invest-30-billion-us-chip-manufacturing
0:00
0:00