Category: National Politics

  • From talking up the 250th anniversary to shaking John Fetterman’s hand, here are the Pa. moments in Trump’s State of the Union address

    From talking up the 250th anniversary to shaking John Fetterman’s hand, here are the Pa. moments in Trump’s State of the Union address

    President Donald Trump ended his historically long State of the Union address Tuesday night with how he began it — talking about the United States’ 250th birthday this summer.

    He mentioned the “historic streets of Philadelphia,” Thomas Jefferson’s final breath, and the FIFA World Cup games, some of which will take place in the city this summer.

    But his talk of the 250th celebrations served as bookends to what was otherwise a speech in which he railed against immigrants, spread falsehoods and lashed out at political opponents.

    During the speech, Trump took credit for ending DEI programs across the country, doubled down on his push to end sanctuary cities, falsely suggested his opponents cheat during elections and called for proof of citizenship in order to vote.

    The president chastised Supreme Court justices for their recent ruling against his tariffs. And he frequently lambasted Democrats, bristling when they would not stand to applaud.

    “These people are crazy,” Trump said.

    Pennsylvania popped up throughout the evening as Trump leaned on the 250th as a framing device for his speech and pointed to a woman from the Poconos to promote his economic agenda.

    Trump talks of ‘epic milestone’ 250th celebrations

    Trump mentioned the “epic milestone” of the United States’ upcoming 250th anniversary in July just moments in his remarks.

    “This July 4, we will mark two and a half centuries of liberty and triumph, progress and freedom, in the most incredible and exceptional nation ever to exist on the face of the earth and you’ve seen nothing yet, we’re going to do better and better and better,” Trump said.

    Philadelphia will be at the center of 250th anniversary celebrations this year, especially during the warmer months when the city is expected to see an influx of tourism which by one estimate could bring in as much as $2.5 billion to the city and region.

    But when visitors stop by Philly’s iconic sites, it’s unclear whether they’ll be seeing the full picture of U.S. history.

    Last month, the Trump administration ordered the takedown of every educational panel from the President’s House at Independence National Historical Park. The site serves as a memorial to the nine people George Washington enslaved at his Philadelphia residence.

    The incident has sparked outrage from Philadelphians who have rallied to protect the site and spurred Mayor Cherelle L. Parker’s first major confrontation with Trump.

    After a lawsuit from the Parker administration and tireless community activism, a federal judge last week ordered the site to be restored. The panels were mostly reinstalled Thursday and Friday before a federal appeals judge ordered park employees to pause while the Trump administration’s appeal remains pending.

    Trump did not address the controversy in his speech even as he touted the city’s history and the founding fathers in his speech.

    The Philadelphia case is the most high-profile battle over the Trump administration’s broader effort to sanitize U.S. history ahead of the 250th. The National Park Service has removed content from parks throughout the country, including the Grand Canyon, underan order from Trump forbidding displays that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.”

    Trump gives a shoutout to working mom from Pa.

    The president brought Megan Hemhauser, a waitress and mom of two from Cresco, Pa., a town in the Poconos, as one of his guests to his address Tuesday night, saying in his speech that because of his “No Tax on Tips” and “No Tax on Overtime” policies she is “so, so much richer.”

    Hemhauser was also featured at Trump’s rally in Mount Pocono in December when the president invited her to speak. She shared that these policies have helped her invest in her family.

    “It saves us and it’s for the future of our children,” she said at the time.

    Under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, tipped workers can deduct up to $25,000 of certain tips per year, but the lowest earners and some tipped workers won’t be eligible for the tax break, CNBC reported. For overtime, certain individuals can deduct up to $12,500 for single filers or $25,000 for married couples filing their taxes jointly each year from 2025 through 2028.

    Both tax breaks are available from 2025 through 2028 and decreases in size when earnings exceed $150,000 for single filers or $300,000 for married couples filing jointly.

    Democrats have pointed out the same legislation also included cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, two programs heavily relied by low-income Americans. They’ve blamed other Trump policies, including his signature tariffs and his opposition to extending health care policies, for exacerbating the cost of living for Pennsylvanians.

    “Trump promised to lower costs for Pennsylvania families on Day One, but he’s done the exact opposite,” said DNC chair Ken Martin in a statement ahead of the speech.

    Protesting with a pin

    U.S. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D., Montgomery) attended Trump’s State of the Union, but ended up leaving the event once Trump announced that Vice President JD Vance would be leading a “war on fraud.”

    “I just had had enough of the lies,” Dean said in an interview after the address.

    The Pennsylvania lawmaker joined other members of the House Democratic Women’s Caucus in wearing white as an homage to the suffragettes. She also wore a pin and scarf showing her support for Ukraine, as Tuesday marks four years since Russia waged its attack on the country.

    “How I would have wished the president would have said ‘I am dismayed that I have not been able to bring an end to that brutal war and that is going to be my singular focus,’” said Dean, a member of the Ukraine caucus. “But, of course, he doesn’t say that.”

    Other Democrats showed their opposition to Trump by boycotting his speech, including several from the region.

    U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D., Delaware) and U.S. Rep. Summer Lee (D., Allegheny) both attended “People’s State of the Union,” an alternative event hosted by progressive groups instead of the president’s address.

    Other Democrats who skipped Trump’s speech include retiring U.S. Reps. Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania and U.S. Sen Cory Booker of New Jersey.

    John Fetterman wears a suit and shakes hands with Trump

    Known to seldom wear dress clothes, U.S. Sen. John Fetterman traded his usual hoodie for a suit Tuesday evening when he shook hands with Trump during the president’s entrance to the House chamber.

    Fetterman’s greeting of Trump comes in contrast to many of his Democratic colleagues and underscores the senator’s willingness to embrace the other side of the political aisle, often earning him ire from his own party.

    U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D., Philadelphia) criticized Fetterman in a post on X Tuesday night.

    “I’m not surprised PA Senator John Fetterman finally got dressed up for once and so warmly greeted Donald Trump tonight,” wrote Boyle, who has been floated as a potential primary challenger to Fetterman in 2028. “After all, as the White House has previously stated, John Fetterman is Trump’s favorite Democrat.”

    During a Wednesday morning interview with Fox News, Fetterman criticized fellow Democrats for not standing and applauding during several moments in Trump’s speech that he felt should have garnered bipartisan support, including when Trump recognized Erika Kirk, whose husband Charlie Kirk was shot and killed last year during a speech in Utah.

    Fetterman also defended his handshake with the president and believes he was only Democrat to make such a gesture.

    “Yes, I shook his hand. Of course. He walked in, and I’m always going to do that, for sure,” Fetterman said.

    President Donald Trump passes Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., as he departs after delivering the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2026.

    Summer Lee’s Working Families Party response

    Lee, a Pittsburgh progressive in her second term, delivered a response to Trump’s address on behalf of the Working Families Party, a grassroots progressive party that often endorses Democratic candidate.

    The Pennsylvania lawmaker criticized Trump’s tariffs, Medicaid cuts, escalation of federal immigration agents, and mass layoffs of federal employees.

    “The state of the union is dire,” Lee said. “We can’t afford to believe Trump’s lies, and we have to pay attention to his actions. This is not a normal time, and our response to it can’t be politics as usual.”

  • Trump used the longest-ever State of the Union to try to convince voters that the U.S. is ‘winning so much’

    Trump used the longest-ever State of the Union to try to convince voters that the U.S. is ‘winning so much’

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump declared during a marathon State of the Union on Tuesday that “we’re winning so much” — insisting he’d sparked an economic boom at home and imposed a new world order abroad in hopes it can counter his sliding approval ratings.

    Trump’s main objective was convincing increasingly wary Americans that the economy is stronger than many believe, and that they should vote for more of the same by backing Republicans during November’s midterm elections. In all, Trump spoke for a record 108 minutes, breaking — by eight minutes — the previous time mark from his address before a joint session of Congress last year.

    The president largely avoided his usual bombast, only occasionally veering off-script — mostly to slam Democrats. As he did during such addresses in his first term, Trump relied on a series of surprise special guests to dramatically punctuate his message. They included U.S. military heroes and a former political prisoner released after U.S. forces toppled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    Trump drew some of the loudest applause of the night when he invited the Olympic gold medal-winning U.S. men’s hockey team into the House chamber.

    “Our country is winning again. In fact, we’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it. People are asking me, ‘Please, please, please, Mister President, we’re winning too much. We can’t take it anymore,’” Trump said before introducing the team.

    The hockey players, wearing their medals and “USA” sweaters, drew a bipartisan standing ovation. Trump pointed to the Democratic side of the chamber and quipped, “That’s the first time I ever I’ve ever seen them get up.”

    In a made-for-TV moment, the president announced he would be awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor, to the hockey team’s goaltender, Connor Hellebuyck. He also bestowed the Purple Heart on Andrew Wolfe — a National Guard member who was shot while deployed on the streets of the nation’s capital. Wolfe made his first public appearance since then during the speech.

    That scene recalled a similar surprise announcement in 2020, when Trump gave the Medal of Freedom to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh during his State of the Union speech.

    Trump decries tariff decision as justices look on

    The president championed his immigration crackdowns and his push to preserve widespread tariffs that the Supreme Court just struck down. He drew applause only from Democrats while describing the high court’s decision, which he called “an unfortunate ruling.”

    Trump vowed to plow ahead, using “alternative” laws to impose the taxes on imports and telling lawmakers, “Congressional action will not be necessary.” Trump argued that the tariffs are paid by foreign countries, despite evidence that the costs are borne by American consumers and businesses. “It’s saving our country,” he said.

    The only Supreme Court justices attending were Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Trump greeted them personally before the speech, despite last week slamming Coney Barrett — who he appointed to the high court in his first term — for siding with the majority against his tariffs.

    Democrats also stood for Trump vowing to halt insider trading by members of Congress. But Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat, yelled, “How about you first!” Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, called out, “You’re the most corrupt president!”

    When some heckling continued, Trump proclaimed, “You should be ashamed of yourselves.” Later, he pointed at Democrats and proclaimed, “These people are crazy.”

    Democratic Rep. Al Green was escorted from the chamber early in the speech, after he unfurled a sign of protest that read “Black People Aren’t Apes!” That was an apparent reference to a racist video the president posted that depicted former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as primates in a jungle. Green was also removed during Trump’s address last year.

    The president, meanwhile, was mostly optimistic and patriotic, but Trump struck a darker tone in large swaths of his speech to warn about the dangers posed by immigrants. He invited lawmakers from both parties to “protect American citizens, not illegal aliens” and championed proposals to limit mail-in ballots and tighten voter identification rules.

    Affordability gets relatively little time

    Trump didn’t dwell on efforts to lower the cost of living — despite polling showing that his handling of the economy and kitchen-table issues has increasingly become a liability. Such concerns about the high costs of living helped propel Democratic wins around the country on Election Day last November.

    There also are persistent fears that tariffs stoking higher prices could eventually hurt the economy and job creation. Economic growth slowed in the last three months of last year.

    It is potentially politically perilous ahead of November elections that could deliver congressional wins to Democrats, just as 2018’s blue wave created a strong check to his administration during his first term.

    On Tuesday, Trump blamed his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, along with Democratic lawmakers in the chamber, saying they were responsible for rising prices and health care costs, two issues his political opponents have repeatedly raised against him.

    “You caused that problem,” Trump said of affordability concerns. He added a moment later, “They knew their statements were a dirty, rotten lie.”

    Trump also said he’d press tech companies involved in artificial intelligence to pay higher electricity rates in areas where their data centers are located. Such data centers tend to use large volumes of electricity, potentially increasing the cost of power to other consumers in the area.

    Another notable off-script moment came as Trump was referencing prescription drug prices, saying, “So in my first year of the second term — should be my third term — but strange things happen,” prompting at least one chant in the chamber of “Four more years!”

    Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who delivered the Democratic response to Trump’s speech, slammed the president’s aggressive immigration policies, his widespread cuts to the federal government and his tariffs.

    “Even though the Supreme Court struck these tariffs down four days ago, the damage to us, the American people, has already been done. Meanwhile, the president is planning for new tariffs,” she said. “Another massive tax hike on you and your family.”

    A warning to Iran

    Trump’s address came as two U.S. aircraft carriers have been dispatched to the Middle East amid tensions with Iran. Trump said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy.”

    “But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror — which they are, by far — to have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

    The president also recounted U.S. airstrikes last summer that pounded Tehran’s nuclear capabilities, and lauded the raid that ousted Maduro in Venezuela — as well as his administration’s brokering of a ceasefire in Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza.

    “As president, I will make peace wherever I can,” Trump said. ”But I will never hesitate to confront threats to America, wherever we must.”

  • Hegseth warns Anthropic to let the military use the company’s AI tech as it sees fit, AP source says

    Hegseth warns Anthropic to let the military use the company’s AI tech as it sees fit, AP source says

    WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave Anthropic’s CEO a Friday deadline to open the company’s artificial intelligence technology for unrestricted military use or risk losing its government contract, according to a person familiar with their meeting Tuesday.

    Anthropic makes the chatbot Claude and is the last of its peers to not supply its technology to a new U.S. military internal network. CEO Dario Amodei repeatedly has made clear his ethical concerns about unchecked government use of AI, including the dangers of fully autonomous armed drones and of AI-assisted mass surveillance that could track dissent.

    Defense officials warned they could designate Anthropic a supply chain risk or use the Defense Production Act to essentially give the military more authority to use its products even if it doesn’t approve of how they are used, according to the person familiar with the meeting and a senior Pentagon official, who both were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    The development, which was reported earlier by Axios, underscores the debate over AI’s role in national security and concerns about how the technology could be used in high-stakes situations involving lethal force, sensitive information, or government surveillance. It also comes as Hegseth has vowed to root out what he calls a “woke culture” in the armed forces.

    “A powerful AI looking across billions of conversations from millions of people could gauge public sentiment, detect pockets of disloyalty forming, and stamp them out before they grow,” Amodei wrote in an essay last month.

    The person familiar called the tone of the meeting cordial but said Amodei didn’t budge on two areas he has established as lines Anthropic won’t cross — fully autonomous military targeting operations and domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens.

    The Pentagon objects to Anthropic’s ethical restrictions because military operations need tools that don’t come with built-in limitations, the senior Pentagon official said. The official argued that the Pentagon has only issued lawful orders and stressed that using Anthropic’s tools legally would be the military’s responsibility.

    Anthropic will no longer be the only AI company approved for classified military networks

    The Pentagon announced last summer that it was awarding defense contracts to four AI companies — Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, and Elon Musk’s xAI. Each contract is worth up to $200 million.

    Anthropic was the first AI company to get approved for classified military networks, where it works with partners like Palantir. Musk’s xAI company, which operates the Grok chatbot, says Grok also is ready to be used in classified settings, according to the senior Pentagon official.

    The official noted that the other AI companies were “close” to that milestone. SpaceX, Musk’s space flight company that recently merged with xAI, didn’t immediately return a request for comment Tuesday.

    Hegseth said in a January speech at SpaceX in South Texas that he was shrugging off any AI models “that won’t allow you to fight wars.”

    Hegseth said his vision for military AI systems means that they operate “without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications,” before adding that the Pentagon’s “AI will not be woke.”

    The defense secretary said that Grok would join the secure but unclassified Pentagon AI network, called GenAI.mil. The announcement came days after Grok — which is embedded into X, the social media network owned by Musk — drew global scrutiny for generating highly sexualized deepfake images of people without their consent.

    OpenAI announced in early February that it, too, would join GenAI.mil, enabling service members to use a custom version of ChatGPT for unclassified tasks.

    Anthropic calls itself more safety-minded

    Anthropic said in a statement after Tuesday’s meeting that it “continued good-faith conversations about our usage policy to ensure Anthropic can continue to support the government’s national security mission in line with what our models can reliably and responsibly do.”

    Anthropic has long pitched itself as the more responsible and safety-minded of the leading AI companies, ever since its founders quit OpenAI to form the startup in 2021.

    The uncertainty with the Pentagon is putting those intentions to the test, according to Owen Daniels, associate director of analysis and fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology.

    “Anthropic’s peers, including Meta, Google, and xAI, have been willing to comply with the department’s policy on using models for all lawful applications,” Daniels said. “So the company’s bargaining power here is limited, and it risks losing influence in the department’s push to adopt AI.”

    In the AI craze that followed the release of ChatGPT, Anthropic closely aligned with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration in volunteering to subject its AI systems to third-party scrutiny to guard against national security risks.

    Amodei, the CEO, has warned of AI’s potentially catastrophic dangers while rejecting the label that he’s an AI “doomer.” He argued in the January essay that “we are considerably closer to real danger in 2026 than we were in 2023″ but that those risks should be managed in a “realistic, pragmatic manner.”

    Anthropic has been at odds with the Trump administration

    This would not be the first time Anthropic’s advocacy for stricter AI safeguards has put it at odds with President Donald Trump’s administration. Anthropic needled chipmaker Nvidia publicly, criticizing Trump’s proposals to loosen export controls to enable some AI computer chips to be sold in China. The AI company, however, remains a close partner with Nvidia.

    Trump’s Republican administration and Anthropic also have been on opposite sides of a lobbying push to regulate AI in U.S. states.

    Trump’s top AI adviser, David Sacks, accused Anthropic in October of “running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering.”

    Sacks was responding on X to Anthropic cofounder Jack Clark, writing about his attempt to balance technological optimism with “appropriate fear” about the steady march toward more capable AI systems.

    Anthropic hired a number of ex-Biden officials soon after Trump’s return to the White House, but it’s also tried to signal a bipartisan approach. The company recently added Chris Liddell, a former White House official from Trump’s first term, to its board of directors.

    The Pentagon’s “breakneck” adoption of AI shows the need for greater AI oversight or regulation by Congress, particularly if AI is being used to surveil Americans, said Amos Toh, senior counsel at the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program at New York University.

    “The law is not keeping up with how quickly the technology is evolving,” Toh wrote in a post on Bluesky. “But that doesn’t mean DoD has a blank check.”

  • Texas Rep. Gonzales resists calls to resign over allegations of an affair with an ex-staffer

    Texas Rep. Gonzales resists calls to resign over allegations of an affair with an ex-staffer

    HOUSTON — U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas resisted growing calls Tuesday from fellow congressional Republicans to resign over a report of an alleged affair with a former staffer who later died after she set herself on fire.

    Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky joined Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, and Nancy Mace of South Carolina in demanding that Gonzales step down immediately. Gonzales is in a tough race in Texas’ Republican primary on March 3, facing a challenger he narrowly defeated in a 2024 GOP runoff.

    He told reporters he will not resign. A resignation would leave Republicans with a 217-214 majority until March, when the first of three special elections to fill vacancies is set in Georgia.

    “There will be opportunities for all of the details and facts to come out,” he said. “What you’ve seen is not all the facts.”

    House Speaker Mike Johnson said he would talk to Gonzales on Tuesday.

    Johnson said Monday that the accusations against Gonzales “must be taken seriously,” but he added, “in every case like this, you have to allow the investigation to play out and all the facts to come out.”

    “If the accusation of something is going to be the litmus for someone being able to continue to serve in the House, a lot of people would have to resign or be removed or expelled from Congress,” Johnson said.

    Meanwhile, Mace announced that she has introduced a resolution to force the House Ethics Commission to publicly release its reports and records of allegations of sexual harassment against members of Congress.

    Gonzales said in a social media post last week that he was being blackmailed and then suggested in another post Sunday that he is the target of “coordinated political attacks.”

    His main primary opponent is Brandon Herrera, a gun manufacturer and gun rights influencer who calls himself “the AK Guy” on YouTube, where his channel has nearly 4.2 million subscribers. Gonzales defeated Herrera by fewer than 400 votes in their 2024 runoff.

    President Donald Trump had endorsed Gonzales for reelection in December.

    The San Antonio Express-News reported last week that it had obtained text messages in which the former staffer, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, wrote to a colleague that she had an affair with the lawmaker.

    The Associated Press has not independently obtained copies of the messages. An attorney for Adrian Aviles, Santos-Aviles’ husband, has said the husband found out about the affair before his wife’s death.

    Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, 35, died in September 2025. The Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office later ruled her death was a suicide by self-immolation.

    “Where are the other men in the GOP?” Massie asked Tuesday in a post on X in calling for Gonzales to resign, adding that Trump should revoke his endorsement.

    Gonzales, whose district stretches from San Antonio to El Paso and runs along the U.S.-Mexico border, has six children with his wife.

    His allegation of blackmail is based on an email from the attorney for the staffer’s husband, Robert Barrera, discussing a possible lawsuit against the lawmaker and a potential settlement with a nondisclosure agreement. The email says that the maximum recoverable amount is $300,000.

    Barrera has said he was not trying to blackmail Gonzales and called the accusation an attempt by the congressman to look like a political victim.

  • Trump administration sues New Jersey over restrictions on immigration arrests

    Trump administration sues New Jersey over restrictions on immigration arrests

    TRENTON — The Trump administration is suing New Jersey over a state order that prohibits federal immigration agents from making arrests in nonpublic areas of state property, such as correctional facilities and courthouses.

    The Justice Department lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Trenton, challenges Gov. Mikie Sherrill‘s Feb. 11 executive order, which also bars the use of state property as a staging or processing area for immigration enforcement.

    Sherrill, a Democrat who took office Jan. 20, “insists on harboring criminal offenders from federal law enforcement,” the lawsuit said, accusing her of attempting to obstruct federal law enforcement and thwart President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

    Sherrill’s executive order “poses an intolerable obstacle” to immigration enforcement and “directly regulates and discriminates” against the federal government, said the lawsuit, which misspelled her name as “Sherill.”

    Asked about the lawsuit Tuesday, Sherrill said: “What I think the federal government needs to be focused on right now, instead of attacking states like New Jersey working to keep people safe, is actually training their ICE agents.”

    The state’s acting attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, said the Trump administration was “wasting its resources on a pointless legal challenge.” New Jersey will fight the lawsuit and “continue to ensure the safety of our state’s immigrant communities,” she said.

    The lawsuit is the latest in the Trump administration’s fight against state and local level restrictions on immigration enforcement.

    Last year, the Justice Department sued Minnesota and Colorado, as well as cities including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Denver over so-called sanctuary laws, which are aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration agents.

    Last May, the Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities — Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, and Hoboken — over such policies. That case is pending.

  • The candidates vying to succeed Dwight Evans got a chance to ask each other questions. Things got tense.

    The candidates vying to succeed Dwight Evans got a chance to ask each other questions. Things got tense.

    With a crowded field of Democrats who largely agree on policy issues, it’s been difficult to differentiate the candidates in this year’s race for Philadelphia’s open congressional seat.

    But at a forum Monday night, the top candidates for the 3rd Congressional District, which is being vacated by retiring Democrat Dwight Evans, began to make clear where the battle lines are — by taking shots at one another.

    At the end of the event, the moderator, 21st Ward Leader Lou Agre, allowed the candidates to ask one another questions. Their choices offered hints as to which of their rivals the candidates view as most threatening.

    Dr. Ala Stanford, who appears to be the strongest candidate among the non-elected officials in the race, questioned the accomplishments of State Sen. Sharif Street, who is seen by many as a frontrunner after being endorsed by the Democratic City Committee and building trades unions.

    Street, in turn, fired a question about hate crime legislation at State Rep. Chris Rabb, a progressive who could counter Street’s hold on the Democratic establishment if he consolidates support from left-leaning organizations.

    Lastly, State Rep. Morgan Cephas came after Stanford, prompting a tense exchange about the physician’s government contracts.

    The 3rd District covers about half of Philadelphia and is, by some measures, the bluest seat in Congress. The Democratic primary is May 19.

    The forum was initially scheduled to be held in-person at the Polish Legion of American Veterans’ Adam Kowalski post in Roxborough, but it was moved to Zoom due to the blizzard on Sunday and Monday.

    Here are the issues the candidates debated Monday night.

    Stanford questions Street’s accomplishments

    Stanford, a pediatric surgeon, has been widely celebrated for founding the Black Doctors Consortium to help reach underserved communities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    She began the candidate-on-candidate questioning on Monday by asking Street for instances in which his work has helped constituents in tangible ways, setting up a juxtaposition with her record.

    “In a time when the people are asking for new leadership, they’re asking for innovation, they’re asking for not the same politics as usual … can you tell the people a time when the seas were rough and you stepped up and delivered for them that they felt it?” Stanford asked, adding: “Can you share what you can do during the chaos that people can feel — and where was it during COVID?”

    Physician Ala Stanford (left) and State Sen. Sharif Street at a December forum hosted by the 9th Ward Democratic Committee.

    Street began by saying that, as the top Democrat on the Senate Banking & Insurance Committee in Harrisburg, he boosted Stanford’s work during the pandemic by pressuring insurance companies to reimburse her fledgling organization, which provided testing and vaccinations for thousands of Philadelphians in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

    “Independence Blue Cross was not moving forward with the reimbursement rates for the Black COVID Doctors Consortium,” Street said. “I spoke with you, and I helped, and I reached out to them to make sure that [the Medicaid plan] Keystone First would begin to pay the reimbursement in an immediate way.”

    He also said his office distributed food to constituents and helped process rent rebates during the pandemic.

    In the run-up to the 2020 election, Street, as chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party at the time, repeatedly fought in court against President Donald Trump’s campaign over election administration issues. In her question, Stanford asked Street to focus on what he delivered for his constituents — “not that you sued Donald Trump 20 times and won every time, because how do the people feel that?”

    But Street said those legal victories resulted in tangible results, as well.

    “Donald Trump wanted to challenge people’s ability to vote in some of the most vulnerable communities,” he said. “I went to court, I stopped him, and I made sure that they had the right to vote, and that was why we were able to pass the vote to remove him from office.”

    Street and Rabb clash over hate-crime legislation

    When it was his turn to pose a question, Street pressed Rabb on why the progressive was opposed to hate-crime legislation, an issue the two had sparred over at a forum last week.

    “You and I have worked to fight for regular folks, for disadvantaged people, for a long time. I was shocked that you … want to prevent hate-crimes legislation,” Street, a centrist Democrat, said to Rabb. “I’ve heard from so many trans women of color, who are most likely to be victims of hate crimes, and they don’t understand.”

    Rabb responded by saying that Street’s line of attack was “shameful and unnecessary.”

    “I know you want to win. I just thought you would do it with honor,” Rabb said. “I am an active member of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus. I am the father of a queer son. I represent an active queer community. … To use this as a political punching bag is just — man, it’s beneath you.”

    At the end of the forum, Street clarified that he has no doubts about Rabb’s commitment to the LGBTQ community.

    At a December candidates forum in Mount Airy, (from left) State Reps. Morgan Cephas and Chris Rabb and physician David Oxman.

    “I had a policy dispute about hate crimes,” Street said. “I did not mean to question your commitment to the trans community or to your kid.”

    The dust-up got in the way of a meaningful debate over hate-crime laws, which increase sentences for people convicted of crimes that prosecutors prove were motivated by prejudice against particular groups.

    Such laws are common across the country, but they have long faced criticism from the libertarian right, which fears that such regulations could be used to target citizens for political views. The laws have also faced pushback from some on the progressive left, who contend that they contribute to mass incarceration.

    “Politicians tout hate-crime laws as proof they care about the marginalized,” Rabb wrote in an op-ed for PennLive last fall. “In reality, the main outcome is more policing, more prosecution, and more incarceration.”

    Street said last week that people who oppose hate-crime laws on the “far left … don’t want to address the antisemitism on the left or the right.”

    Rabb has been the 3rd District candidate most critical of Israel’s war in Gaza. Street has also been critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the war, but holds a more centrist view on the conflict in the Middle East.

    The Pennsylvania House in 2023 approved a bill to expand the state’s law that criminalizes ethnic intimidation to include sexual orientation and disability status. Rabb voted for the bill, which ultimately died in the Senate amid GOP opposition, but said he had “considerable reservations.”

    “We should collectively focus on structural violence and hatred that has been cultivated by the very institutions that have been asked to address this legislation,” Rabb said at the time.

    Cephas presses Stanford about her government contracts

    Cephas, who represents a West Philadelphia district and chairs the Philadelphia delegation to the state House, questioned how much money Stanford’s nonprofit organization has made from government contracting since the onset of the pandemic.

    “You oftentimes quote that you, as a private citizen, came in and saved Philadelphia from COVID, and, you know, there are a number of people on this [Zoom] call that stepped up during COVID,” Cephas said, noting that she worked with Stanford to set up clinics in her district during the pandemic.

    “We all did it in our own individual capacity, and we didn’t receive government contracts for it. … How much in government contracts did you receive during the COVID-19 period?”

    Stanford noted that she initially launched the Black Doctors Consortium with her own financial resources to serve neighborhoods that were not being reached by existing healthcare and government institutions. She said her first $1 million city grant for testing came months after she began her work.

    In 2020 and 2021, Stanford’s groups received $2.5 million in grants and contracts from the city, state, and federal governments, according to Stanford campaign manager Janée Taft-Mack. That money covered costs including supplies, staff, mobile medical units, personal protective equipment, and facility rentals, Taft-Mack said.

    Since then, Stanford has continued partnering with government agencies to address healthcare inequality. She has opened the Dr. Ala Stanford Center for Health Equity in Swampoodle and secured a $5.38 million contract for the Black Doctors Consortium to work at Riverview Wellness Village, the city-owned drug recovery home.

    The total amount Stanford and her organizations have received for work since 2021 was not immediately clear.

    Cheesesteaks, of course

    Dr. David Oxman, an intensive care physician at Jefferson University Hospital who lives in South Philadelphia, closed the open question session by asking his fellow candidates what cheese they order on their cheesesteaks.

    Philly’s most famous culinary offering has proven politically hazardous over the years, such as when John Kerry catastrophically asked for Swiss cheese while visiting Pat’s King of Steaks during the 2004 presidential election.

    This year’s congressional hopefuls were better prepared than the Massachusetts senator.

    Agre, the moderator whose ward includes much of Roxborough, interjected to insist that Dalessandro’s served up the best steak sandwiches in the city.

    At a candidate’s forum on Feb. 9 at the Church of the Holy Trinity, (left to right) Alex Schnell, physician Dave Oxman, State Sen. Sharif Street, physician Ala Stanford, State Rep. Morgan Cephas, and Pablo McConnie-Saad.

    Cephas said she orders Cooper Sharp at Angelo’s Pizzeria. Stanford’s go-to is American from Dalessandro’s. Street, a vegetarian, said he gets non-meat cheesesteaks from Hip City Veg and enjoys the cheese they use. (Mozzarella, per Hip City’s website.)

    And Rabb shouted out the cheesesteak egg rolls from Black Dragon, a West Philadelphia establishment offering a “unique fusion of Black American cuisine presented with the familiar aesthetics of classic Chinese American takeout,” according to its website.

    Still tense from the previous questions and perhaps a bit peckish, the candidates declined Agre’s offer to deliver closing remarks.

    Staff writers Max Marin and Ryan W. Briggs contributed to this article.

  • Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered

    Supreme Court rules the Postal Service can’t be sued, even when mail is intentionally not delivered

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Americans can’t sue the U.S. Postal Service, even when employees deliberately refuse to deliver mail.

    By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled against a Texas landlord, Lebene Konan, who alleges her mail was intentionally withheld for two years. Konan, who is Black, claims racial prejudice played a role in postal employees’ actions.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for a majority of five conservative justices, said the federal law that generally shields the Postal Service from lawsuits over missing, lost, and undelivered mail includes “the intentional nondelivery of mail.”

    In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that while the protection against lawsuits is broad, it does not extend to situations when the decision not to deliver mail “was driven by malicious reasons.” Justice Neil Gorsuch joined his three liberal colleagues in dissent.

    President Donald Trump’s Republican administration had warned that a ruling for Konan would have led to a flood of similar lawsuits against the cash-strapped Postal Service.

    Konan, who’s also a real estate agent and an insurance agent, claims two employees at a post office in Euless, Texas, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, deliberately didn’t deliver mail belonging to her and her tenants because, she alleges, they didn’t like that she is Black and owns multiple properties.

    According to court documents, the dispute began when Konan discovered the mailbox key for one of her rental properties had been changed without her knowledge, preventing her from collecting and distributing tenants’ mail from the box. When she contacted the local post office, she was told she wouldn’t receive a new key or regular delivery until she proved she owned the property. She did so, the documents say, but the mail problems continued, despite the USPS inspector general instructing the mail to be delivered.

    Konan alleges the employees marked some of the mail as undeliverable or return to sender. Konan and her tenants failed to receive important mail such as bills, medications, and car titles, according to the lawsuit. Konan also claims she lost rental income because some tenants moved out due to the situation.

    After filing dozens of complaints with postal officials, Konan finally filed a lawsuit under the 1946 Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows some lawsuits against the government. The case focused on the reach of the special postal exemption to the law.

  • Behind closed doors, GOP lawmaker questioned ‘disturbing’ East Wing demolition

    Behind closed doors, GOP lawmaker questioned ‘disturbing’ East Wing demolition

    As GOP leaders leaped to defend President Donald Trump’s decision to tear down the East Wing of the White House last year, one Republican lawmaker privately warned a senior White House aide that he had “substantial concerns” and demanded answers about how the decision was made.

    Administration officials had pledged the project would not “interfere” with existing structures, and the public had no warning about the demolition.

    “The stark images of the East Wing demolished in mere days were disturbing to Americans who cherish preservation of our nation’s history,” Rep. Michael R. Turner (R., Ohio), co-chair of the congressional Historic Preservation Caucus, wrote in an Oct. 24 letter obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and shared with the Washington Post.

    Turner’s correspondence to Will Scharf, Trump’s staff secretary and chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, the review committee with the power to approve or reject the ballroom project, raised questions about oversight, transparency, and process, including whether the White House had taken steps to preserve artifacts.

    The communication, obtained by the government watchdog group Public Citizen, adds to the public understanding of sweeping concerns voiced by members of Congress, preservationists and others over transparency and other issues with Trump’s project. A federal judge is weighing a legal challenge to the construction.

    Scharf responded more than seven weeks later, telling Turner that Trump administration officials did not consult with or get the approval of the commission before tearing down the East Wing. But, he added, they were not required to since the commission’s review process covers only “vertical” construction — not demolition or site preparation. Scharf has made the same argument several times since, a position critics have blasted as absurd because those three steps are so closely linked — and because part of the commission’s duty in reviewing projects is to consider the preservation of buildings that already exist.

    Turner declined, through a spokeswoman, to discuss the letter or his concerns, and none of the other 17 Republicans on the Historic Preservation Caucus responded to interview requests.

    The letter from Turner “revealed what people were really thinking,” said Jon Golinger, democracy advocate at Public Citizen. “I bet there’s a lot more high-ranking Republicans who feel the same.”

    Trump has cast the 90,000-square-foot, privately funded addition as a needed upgrade to the White House that taxpayers will not have to support. Administration officials have publicly identified about two dozen companies and about a dozen individual donors they say have already contributed hundreds of millions toward the $400 million project, including major corporations such as Amazon, Google, and Palantir that collectively have billions of dollars in contracts before the administration. (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.)

    Americans oppose Trump’s demolition of the White House’s East Wing by a more than 2-to-1 ratio, according to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month.

    Given that, Golinger said, he’s not surprised by Republicans’ relative silence on the project in a midterm election year.

    “I certainly haven’t seen a lot of campaign ads saying, ‘Elect me for this reason,’” Golinger said. “No Republicans have had to … put their name behind this project and say, ‘This is what I stand for.’”

    Many liberal lawmakers and political groups, meanwhile, have invoked the ballroom in appeals to voters ahead of the midterms. Congressional Democrats have pressed the Trump administration and its allies to divulge more details, asking whether donors stand to gain for their contributions.

    “BLOCK Trump’s White House Ballroom,” said one fundraising email sent by Defend Democracy Now PAC last month. “Top Democrats are fighting TOOTH AND NAIL to stop this wasteful project in its tracks.”

    On Oct. 30, Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D., N.M.), Turner’s fellow co-chair on the Historic Preservation Caucus, was among the 60 House Democrats who sent Trump a public letter asking for some of the same information Turner had requested privately less than a week before.

    U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon is expected to rule soon on whether the project can proceed after criticizing the Trump administration for making an “end run” around congressional oversight by soliciting private donations for the project rather than seeking taxpayer money.

    At a court hearing last month, Leon expressed skepticism of Justice Department lawyers’ argument that Congress had authorized the White House to make changes to its grounds by setting aside several million dollars in funding and allowing the Interior Department to solicit gifts for national parks.

    Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said the congressional authorization was narrow and limited to matters such as White House maintenance, not carte blanche to undertake one of the biggest changes in the White House’s history. Justice Department lawyers have argued that any pause on the project could pose a national security risk and said they will immediately appeal if Leon grants a stay on construction.

    If he rules that Congress must explicitly authorize the ballroom building, Trump could press congressional Republicans to deliver, which would commit Turner to a public up-or-down vote.

    “There will be nowhere to run,” Golinger said, “and nowhere to hide.”

  • Trump’s newest tariffs could face legal challenge, though time is short

    Trump’s newest tariffs could face legal challenge, though time is short

    President Donald Trump’s new tariffs are not legally justified, according to several prominent economists and trade experts, who say there is no sign of the profound international financial problems that such measures were intended to remedy.

    Hours after the Supreme Court invalidated the emergency tariffs that he imposed last year, Trump on Friday invoked a 1974 law to announce a new 10% global import tax, later raising it to 15%. The president cited a provision known as Section 122 that authorizes temporary restrictions on imports to deal with “fundamental international payments problems.”

    In an official proclamation, the president said the nation’s “balance of payments,” a comprehensive account of Americans’ financial transactions with foreigners, was suffering “a large and serious deficit.” And he listed a number of metrics reflecting a deteriorating U.S. financial posture.

    The law does not define “balance-of-payments deficit,” and economists disagree about what should be included in the term. But several critics, including the International Monetary Fund’s former chief economist and a prominent conservative legal commentator, disputed the president’s claim. Trump wrongly conflated an alleged payments deficit with the merchandise trade deficit that he targeted last year with his first set of comprehensive tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), they said.

    “The U.S. does not have a ‘payments’ problem. It can finance its trade deficits,” Gita Gopinath, the former IMF official, now teaching at Harvard University, wrote on X.

    Added Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, writing in the conservative National Review: “These new tariffs are even more clearly illegal than Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.”

    Opposition to the new import taxes erupted even before they took effect at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday. The outcry suggested that the president, still smarting from his 6-3 Supreme Court defeat, could face renewed legal jeopardy over the centerpiece of his economic agenda.

    “I do anticipate a lawsuit,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics for the Cato Institute and a former trade lawyer.

    U.S. importers would have the right to sue once they paid the tariffs. Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit public-interest law firm that represented several small businesses in one of the tariff cases decided by the Supreme Court, said Monday that it is “closely monitoring” the president’s latest actions.

    “We will ensure that whatever authority the executive branch relies on, it follows the rules Congress actually wrote and the constitutional guardrails that protect our system of separated powers,” said Sara Albrecht, the center’s chairman.

    The debate over the Section 122 levies shows that questions of law and economics will continue to dog Trump’s bid to remake the global trading system. This time, there is no question that Congress has delegated to the president the power to levy tariffs — only under what circumstances. At issue are complex definitional questions of international economics and the legislative intent behind the wording of an untested provision in U.S. trade law.

    Time may also be a factor. The Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them, which is unlikely.

    Judges might be reluctant to “second guess” the president’s judgment on whether a balance-of-payments problem exists, said John Veroneau, a lawyer who served as deputy U.S. trade representative under President George W. Bush.

    Still, the administration’s newfound reliance upon Section 122 reverses the legal arguments it made last year. Defending the president’s emergency tariffs, Justice Department attorneys told an appeals court that Section 122 did not apply to Trump’s trade deficit concerns, which were “conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”

    The White House declined to elaborate on the president’s Feb. 20 proclamation and fact sheet, which blamed a loss of domestic manufacturing for an excessive number of dollars leaving the country. Problems with the nation’s balance of payments can “endanger the ability of the United States to finance its spending, erode investor confidence in the economy, and distress the financial markets,” the proclamation said.

    Congress passed the Trade Act of 1974 when the United States was dealing with a distinctly different set of economic issues. In 1971, President Richard M. Nixon abruptly ended the convertibility of dollars into gold, marking the end of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates.

    At the time, foreign central banks were rushing to trade their unwanted dollars for gold, threatening to deplete U.S. financial reserves.

    There’s no sign of that sort of crisis today. The dollar has dropped about 10% over the past year, but it remains above its level for most of the decade leading to 2015. There’s certainly no sign of the “imminent and significant depreciation” that Section 122 requires.

    But even some Democrats say the administration is reacting to worrisome financial ailments.

    Economist Brad Setser, who served in the Treasury Department under President Barack Obama, said the global economy is characterized by dangerous imbalances.

    For years, the U.S. has run a deficit in its current account, the broadest measure of the nation’s trade balance, while China has run a mirror-image surplus. To keep running a large trade deficit, the U.S. must attract financing from abroad. So far, it’s been able to do that, which is why many analysts do not share the administration’s urgency.

    But the nation’s net international investment position — which balances the value of foreign stocks and bonds owned by Americans against what foreigners own in this country — is also deteriorating. That figure reached negative $26.7 trillion last year, down sharply in recent years.

    Some of that decline reflects foreigners’ large purchases of U.S. stocks, which have outperformed other markets, and thus is not a problem, Setser said. But the deterioration in the investment account also stems from the growth in the U.S. external debt, which carries a rising interest burden.

    “At this level of the current account [deficit], U.S. external debt will tend to rise. The external position will tend to weaken, which is one definition of a balance-of-payments problem,” he said. “The debt position does worry me.”

  • Stacy Garrity will be a guest at Trump’s SOTU address. Here’s who else from Pa. will (and won’t) be there.

    Stacy Garrity will be a guest at Trump’s SOTU address. Here’s who else from Pa. will (and won’t) be there.

    Pennsylvania Republican gubernatorial candidate and state Treasurer Stacy Garrity is to be among the guests filling the U.S. House’s gallery Tuesday night when President Donald Trump delivers the first State of the Union address of his second term.

    Her presence at the primetime speech underlines her alignment with Trump on the national stage as she pursues her challenge against popular Democratic incumbent Gov. Josh Shapiro, widely seen as a potential contender for the White House in 2028.

    A campaign spokesperson said Garrity will attend the address in her official capacity as state treasurer rather than as a candidate, but the Republican lawmaker bringing her to the event specifically cited her campaign for governor when he announced her as his guest.

    “I am pleased to announce that the next governor of Pennsylvania Stacy Garrity will be my guest at the coming State of the Union,” U.S. Rep. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, who represents the 15th District, said earlier this month at a gathering of Pennsylvania Republicans in Harrisburg.

    Steven Chizmar, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Treasury Department, said that Garrity was in Washington for the National Association of State Treasurers through Tuesday and that her attendance at the speech will come as part of this previously scheduled trip.

    “This opportunity will allow her to gain valuable insights into national issues that could impact Pennsylvanians and the services provided by the Pennsylvania Treasury Department,” Chizmar said. “Attending the State of the Union is an honor rooted in more than two centuries of American tradition and Stacy Garrity is proud to be able to attend the president’s address.”

    Garrity’s trip to Washington comes just days after Shapiro was among the Democratic governors to meet with Trump at the White House for the National Governors Association’s annual conference — though he skipped the black-tie dinner after Trump’s attacks on colleagues.

    Garrity is a longtime Trump supporter who has voiced support for Pennsylvanians to cooperate with ICE agents and previously claimed that Trump won the 2020 election.

    Trump endorsed Garrity at the end of January, saying, “Stacy is a true America First patriot who has been with me from the beginning.”

    Garrity was reelected as treasurer during the 2024 red wave in Pennsylvania when all state row offices were won by Republicans, as Trump carried Pennsylvania with more votes than any statewide Republican candidate in history .

    But now a little over a year into his second term, Trump’s approval rating is sinking. According to a new Washington Post-ABC-Ipsos poll, 60% of Americans said they disapprove of how Trump is handling the presidency. This is a potential liability for Garrity and other Pennsylvania Republicans on the ballot this year.

    The Pennsylvania Democratic Party seized on Garrity’s planned appearance at the State of the Union. Party chair Eugene DePasquale said during a news briefing Monday that Garrity will be “cheerleading” Trump’s “damaging” policies and specifically tied Garrity to rising healthcare costs.

    Democrats boycott or bring guests to send a message

    Healthcare costs will likely be a key point of Democratic messaging against Trump on Tuesday night, following a national spike in insurance premiums when enhanced tax credits for the Affordable Care Act expired at the start of the year.

    U.S. Rep. Madeleine Dean, who represents the 4th District, which is primarily Montgomery County, is to bring Lisa Boone Bogacki, a physical therapist and affordable healthcare advocate from Berks County.

    Bogacki‘s husband, Gary, died from a sudden cardiac event in 2009 and Bogacki’s family came to rely on the Affordable Care Act and Social Security survivor benefits.

    “Prior to the ACA, I paid over $20,000 annually for insurance coverage, and this was where the majority of the kids’ survivor’s benefits was spent,” Bogacki said in a news release from Dean’s office. “The ACA finally made insurance premiums affordable for us. This year, my premiums have drastically increased, following the new cuts made to the program.”

    U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio, who represents the 17h District in Western Pennsylania, also focused on health care messaging with his announced guest, Jonathan Akanowicz, an independent pharmacist from Hampton Township.

    Akanowicz has been working to lower prescription drug costs and save community pharmacies by campaigning against pharmacy benefit managers.

    Addressing another contentious issue, Trump’s immigration agenda, U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware plans to bring Maria Mesias-Tatnall, director of outreach and immigration assistance at the Delaware Department of Justice.

    Some Democrats are choosing to express their disapproval in other ways.

    U.S. Rep. Summer Lee, of the 12th District in Pittsburgh and surrounding area, plans to attend the progressive-led “People’s State of the Union” in Washington instead of Trump’s speech, her office said.

    She is to deliver the Working Families Party’s response to Trump, according to the progressive organization.

    U.S. Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of the 5th District mostly in Delaware County, is also scheduled to attend the “People’s State of the Union” event, organized by progressive groups MeidasTouch and MoveOn, her office confirmed.

    After he boycotted Trump’s joint address to Congress last year, U.S. Rep. Dwight Evans of the 3rd District in Philadelphia will not attend Trump’s address Tuesday night. In his place, Evans — who is retiring — has designated Carolyn Hill, a Philadelphia grandmother who is impacted by Trump’s cuts to SNAP, an honorary guest.

    Republican lawmakers from the region

    U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania will be hosting hosted Jason Zugai, vice president of United Steelworkers Local 2227, as his guest after Japanese company Nippon Steel finalized a buyout of U.S. Steel in June. McCormick played a key role in persuading Trump to back the deal after his initial public opposition.

    U.S. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie of the 7th District, which is north of Philadelphia will to bring Sarah Arndt, the lead teacher at PathStone Carbon County Head Start, where she has worked for the past 13 years. Funding for her program was in jeopardy last fall amid the lengthy government shutdown and state budget impasse.

    And Sheryl Klein, a senior at Council Rock High School South in Bucks County, will to be the guest of U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of the 1st District. Klein founded and leads the high school’s Women’s Empowerment Club.

    “That is the kind of civic engagement we should be encouraging across this country at every level: unifying, positive, and rooted in service to something greater than ourselves,” Fitzpatrick said.

    Fitzpatrick and Mackenzie represent key swing districts, which both parties are targeting in the fall.