In the first three months of the Trump administration, Americans were stunned by President Trump’s breakneck pace: executive orders overturning onerous Biden-era regulations, massive reductions in force, and rescissions eliminating billions in waste. Republicans notched some of their highest approval ratings in months. Democrats looked rudderless.
For the first time in years, it felt like Republicans were taking the country back — unapologetically.
The task remains what it was 365 days ago: Save the country, secure future elections, and restore the American dream.
Fast-forward a year, and the public mood has turned bleak. A recent Fox News poll found that 52% of voters would support the Democrat candidates in their House districts this November — reportedly the highest level of support for either party since 2017. More jarring: Voters favor Democrats by 14 points on affordability and helping the middle class and by 21 points on health care.
President Trump’s worries about the midterms, typical swings aside, look justified.
But plenty of time remains, enough to change the trajectory — if Republicans are willing to spend time and effort instead of conserving both.
The problem sits in the mirror. Despite ample runway to tee up major legislation through a second round of reconciliation — the tool Republicans can use to deliver big wins without a single Democratic vote in the Senate — too many lawmakers have acted as if the moment already passed.
The Republican Study Committee produced a blueprint aimed at making the American dream affordable again by tackling the same pressures families feel every day: rising costs, rising premiums, and a fading path to home ownership for younger Americans.
Yet too many Republicans have decided to run on last year’s accomplishments in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, hoping “tax cuts” can substitute for finishing the America First agenda.
Voters aren’t buying it — and they have reasons.
Just days ago, 76 House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a consolidated appropriations package that included millions in earmarks for clinics providing "gender-affirming care" and $5 billion for refugee resettlement — while declining chances to strip the bill of the pork Republicans claim to oppose.
Days before that, 46 Republicans voted against an amendment to defund rogue activist judge James Boasberg’s office. Eighty-one Republicans voted against an amendment to defund the National Endowment for Democracy — which, contrary to its name, functions as a rogue CIA cutout that fuels global censorship and domestic propaganda.
While basic conservative principles get betrayed in plain sight, Senate Republicans too often hide the ball, using procedure as an excuse for inaction.
RELATED: 3 debunked Democrat claims about the SAVE America Act
Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy’s Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act and the new SAVE America Act have passed the House a combined three times. Lawmakers and pundits insist it’s a nonstarter in the Senate. Passing it, they say, would require “nuking the filibuster” — a risky move when 51 votes for major conservative policy cannot be taken for granted.
But to voters, it looks like business as usual: elected officials trying to save their seats rather than save their country.
And voters are right.
Contrary to the lazy narrative, enforcing a talking filibuster does not eliminate the filibuster.
The talking filibuster has been permitted under Senate rules since 1806 and served for more than a century as the primary way to delay or block a vote. Cloture came later. Today, the minority can simply signal its intent to filibuster, triggering a 60-vote threshold to invoke cloture, end debate, and move to final passage by simple majority.
Enforcing a talking filibuster on the SAVE America Act would not change Senate rules or eliminate the minority’s right to filibuster. It would require the majority leader to keep the bill on the floor — and force the minority to sustain a real filibuster as long as the majority maintains a quorum.
Time and effort stand between us and an immensely popular voter ID law.
RELATED: Noem urges swift passage of SAVE Act to prevent illegal aliens from disenfranchising American voters
Out-of-control spending keeps burying families in debt and shrinking what their dollars buy. Between backroom deals and broad inaction, politicians seem to be counting the days until a Democrat House returns with subpoenas and impeachment resolutions. The status quo won’t cut it.
The task remains what it was 365 days ago: Save the country, secure future elections, and restore the American dream.
No one believes the job is finished, so stop pretending it is. With months left before November, members of Congress need to prove why voters should keep them in office. Only a dogged push to finish the America First agenda will do.
Waymo's chief safety officer was not exactly clear when it came to questions about the company using overseas operators.
Mauricio Pena faced tough questions from U.S. senators last week when he was asked if Waymo employs humans who remotely assist its driverless taxis through difficult driving scenarios.
'It's one thing when a taxi is replaced by an Uber or a Lyft. It's another thing when the jobs just go completely overseas.'
The question came from Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) during a hearing on commerce, science, and transportation. Pena submitted testimony titled "Hit the Road, Mac: The Future of Self-Driving Cars," which promoted his company as an "American innovation success story" while urging lawmakers to advance legislation for self-driving cars.
However, it was the grilling from Senator Markey that got the most attention online.
"Senator, they provide guidance. They do not remotely drive the vehicles," Pena told Markey. "As you stated, Waymo asks for guidance in certain situations and gets an input, but the Waymo vehicle is always in charge of the dynamic driving tasks, so that is just one additional input."
Seeking more clarification, Markey asked, "But the human being helps the vehicle to navigate those difficult driving scenarios. Is that correct?"
"Yes," Pena replied.
The safety executive went on to admit that at least some of these agents operate remotely from the Philippines, but he was unable to state a percentage or figure as to how many overseas agents Waymo employs.
"I just don't have that number," Pena told the committee.
RELATED: Self-driving cars that break traffic laws won’t receive tickets in California: Report
Senator Markey called the admission "fairly shocking" and said it was "completely unacceptable" to have people overseas influencing American vehicles. He then listed a string of possible safety issues, such as out-of-date information, lack of roadway knowledge, or not having a U.S. driver's license.
"Let's not forget," Markey added, "Waymo is trying to replace the jobs of hardworking taxi and rideshare drivers. And now you're saying that of the human beings, the human jobs that remain in the system, you're shipping those jobs overseas. It's one thing when a taxi is replaced by an Uber or a Lyft. It's another thing when the jobs just go completely overseas."
Across multiple outlets, Waymo sought to clarify what exactly its remote operators do and do not control.
In an interview with Decrypt, a Waymo spokesperson said the company does not consider its remote operators to be drivers. Furthermore, Waymo rejected the idea that humans control its taxis in real time.
"Their role is not to drive the vehicle remotely. They're not remote drivers," the spokesperson explained. "They answer, generally speaking, multiple-choice questions posed to them by the vehicle."
The representative maintained that "all of the driving happens on board" the vehicle and does not happen remotely.
Addressing the safety concerns, the spokesperson said that both U.S.-based and foreign response agents are licensed and trained for the regions they support.
RELATED: Anti-ICE rioters destroy fleet of autonomous cars during Los Angeles riot
All the agents have a "vehicle or van driver's license," the spokesperson went on, stating that human input is contextual and not direct commands.
"The human offers a suggestion in a challenging scenario, and the Waymo Driver will take that suggestion into account when making its next decision."
In regard to its foreign hiring, the company told People that its reason for outsourcing to the Philippines was an effort to scale the company globally.
These "fleet response" agents allegedly undergo regular driving history checks, People reported. However, the outlet also said that Waymo did not provide any information on how many remote operators are located in the U.S. or abroad.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The talking filibuster is worth trying. It is worth a public accounting of whether this Senate, in this moment, for this American people, can deliver on its duties.
The talking filibuster has been a tool in the Senate’s arsenal for 200 years. Returning to it could unlock the majesty of the institution.
'It’s infuriating. It’s like they think a whole demographic of our country can’t figure out how to get an ID,' said Wisconsin's Will Martin.
www.theblaze.com