Big ideas from Trump's State of the Union speech, from federal 401k payments to Dalilah's law

From Just the News.com (Feb. 24):

After a whirlwind year of action abroad and home, President Donald Trump on Tuesday night used the first State of the Union address of his second administration to propose sweeping new ideas – ranging from trucker safety to an historic change to the energy grid in a signal he has no plans to relent on his agenda in the face of the midterm congressional elections.

Here are some of the big ideas the 47th president put on the table during a joint session of Congress:

A federal matching payment for Americans' 401k retirement accounts

Trump announced he will be creating a new program giving Americans up to $1,000 to match their retirement savings in 401k accounts, promising more details in the near future.

"Your 401ks are way up, yet half of all of working Americans still do not have access to a retirement plan with matching contributions from an employer," Trump declared. "To remedy this gross disparity, I'm announcing that next year my administration will give these often forgotten American workers, great people, the people that built our country, access to the same type of retirement plan offered to every federal worker.

"We will match your contribution with up to $1,000 each year, as we ensure that all Americans can profit from a rising stock market."

<

A plan to protect electricity rate payers from the costs of Artificial Intelligence grid expansion

Trump announced a “rate-payer protection pledge” being executed with major tech companies requiring them to provide for their own power needs by building their own power plants and grids. It's a major revolution in power policy, allowing private companies to do what major governments have handled for decades.

U.S. electricity rates have soared an average of 6.3% in the past year as the AI revolution rages forward with massive data center construction.

<

Delilah's Law: A Major Reform for Commercial Truck Driver Licenses

Trump called on Congress to pass a "Delilah's Law," barring states from issuing commercial driving licenses to illegal immigrants. In announcing the proposed law, he turned to the audience and Dalilah Coleman, a first-grader who was severely injured in a car accident caused by an illegal alien driving a semi-truck.

"Many, if not most, illegal aliens do not speak English and cannot read even the most basic road signs," Trump said. "That's why tonight I'm calling on Congress to pass what we will call the Delilah law, barring any state from granting commercial driver's licenses to illegal aliens."

<

Tariffs to income tax freedom?

Trump said he will make new legal justifications for his tariffs to preserve them after a recent loss at the Supreme Court and predicted they would one day put the country on a path to reducing federal income taxes.

"I believe the tariffs, paid for by foreign countries will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love," Trump said.

<

A new commander for the war on fraud and a goal for a balanced budget

Trump turned to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk at the beginning of his second term to run the DOGE review to identify waste, fraud and abuse in taxpayer programs. Musk finished his temporary assignment identifying tens of billions of dollars in potential savings before returning to his suite of companies.

On Tuesday night, Trump said the next phase of the “war on fraud” would be led by Vice President JD Vance. He also suggested there were enough savings to be achieved that could put America on a path toward a balanced budget after years of annual budget deficits of $2 trillion or more.

<

Redirecting federal health subsidies from big insurers under Obamacare to American families instead

Trump proposed anew redirecting the billions of dollars in subsidies given to health insurers under Obamacare to individual health savings accounts, allowing people to choose health care services directly.

"I want to stop all payments to big insurance companies and instead give that money directly to the people so they can buy their own health care, which will be better health care at a much lower cost," Trump said. [source]

A pretty good speech. I don’t think taxpayers should pay for others’ babies though. Private donations (like from the Dell family) are okay. Otherwise, it is just a form of welfare.

Other mentions of the speech:

• Read the complete transcript of Trump’s 2026 State of the Union
• Trump declares 'war on fraud' during State of the Union
• Cheap Gas, Less Crime, Lives Saved, And 4 Other Victories Dems Refused To Cheer At SOTU
• The Right’s Brand Is 'America First.' The Left's Brand Is Getting Mad About That
• Miracle in the Capitol: Trump Compels Dems To Stand During SOTU
• The Silence of the Dems
• 7 Ways Republicans Can Capitalize On SOTU Momentum If They Want A Shot At Midterm Victory
• Trump’s Pro-America Vision Will Only Succeed If He Pushes Republicans To Implement It
• Trump Hails 'Turnaround for the Ages' in SOTU Address
• In SOTU, Trump Slams Court Ruling, Says Tariffs Will Stand
• Trump's speech is longest State of the Union address in recent history
• President Trump Gets the Job Done
• The most INCREDIBLE moment of Trump's 2026 State of the Union [video]

What “Separation of Church and State” Is Really About

From Breakpoint.org (July 14, 2022):

In response to the recent Dobbs decision and the Supreme Court’s clear, consistent support for religious liberty throughout this term, many progressives are warning of an imminent “Christian theocracy.” Among the loudest voices predicting our collective doom are mainstream media outlets. For example, a recent story in Reuters claimed, “U.S. Supreme Court Takes Aim at Separation of Church and State.”

What’s missing in virtually all of these pieces is a proper understanding of the “establishment clause.” The establishment clause is derived from the opening lines of the First Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” There are two ways this statement is commonly misunderstood.

First, it is often described as establishing a “wall of separation between church and state.” In fact, those words are found nowhere in the Constitution. The phrase actually was coined later in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Second, and more importantly, it is assumed that if organized religion cannot be supported by the state, then secularism is somehow “neutral.” Thus, by default, anything goes as long as it’s “secular.”

Understanding the historical context is essential. In the 18th century, an “established” religion referred to an official state church. In the U.S., individual states had already established churches, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia. The First Amendment specifically applied to Congress and prohibited a national church. To prefer the Anglican Church over the Congregationalists or Presbyterians would, at the time, mean alienating certain citizens and entire states. States continued to have established churches well into the 19th century.

In addition, the First Amendment was not intended to prohibit religious activities in governmental institutions. From the very beginning, Congress started each session with prayer. That continues today and is led by an official chaplain.

Our founding fathers, particularly James Madison, believed that religious liberty was an innate right, and inseparable from the freedom of conscience. He also believed that religion would better flourish in a free marketplace of ideas. That thinking was the basis for the free exercise clause.

This understanding of the freedom of conscience is the foundation for the other freedoms protected in the First Amendment. Without conscience rights, we cannot truly speak, write, assemble, or advocate freely from our deepest beliefs. That’s why the freedom of religion is often called “the first freedom.” Its position in the Bill of Rights highlights its importance.

Although the rights of conscience should not be controversial, somehow, that’s what they have become. How this happened is worth considering. By claiming secularism to be neutral, proponents of secularism ,as far back as the 19th century, attempted to broadly apply laws originally intended by Protestants to prevent Catholic schools from accessing state funds. In the 20th-century, secularists embraced the concept of “a living Constitution” in order to transform the meaning of the First Amendment, attempting to keep religious institutions from accessing state funds and allowing only “secular” views in the public arena.

Though many court cases illustrate this, among the more important was Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), which declared unconstitutional Maryland’s requirement that officeholders state belief in God. Rather than ruling on the basis of Article VI, which prohibits religious tests for public office, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from violating the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens. The same line of reasoning has since been used to challenge prayers at public meetings, Bible studies in schools, and nativity scenes on public property. In the process, the First Amendment was turned on its head, taking a clause intended to keep the state from backing any one denomination and construing it to position the state in opposition to all organized religions.

In footnote 11 of the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, Justice Hugo Black listed secular humanism as one of a number of religions “which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God.” Calling humanism a religion was not outlandish.  For a century, humanists such as John Dewey and Julian Huxley had defined their beliefs as a religion. After all, secularism involves certain claims about the cosmos, existence, and human nature.

And yet in 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District that while “religion” should be broadly interpreted for free exercise clause purposes, “anything ‘arguably non-religious’ should not be considered religious in applying the establishment clause.” In other words, secular organizations were able to play both sides, qualifying as a religion for the free exercise clause but free from constraints from the establishment clause.

To further determine whether religious activities could utilize public spaces, the Supreme Court derived the so-called “Lemon Test” in the case Lemon v. Kurzman (1991). According to this rule, a religious activity is only licit on public grounds if it performs a secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, and does not foster excessive government entanglement in religion. This test maintained an obviously secular bias: Secular organizations were not required to pass any tests to obtain access.

In the recent decision in the Coach Kennedy case, the Supreme Court continued its long-overdue corrections to the anti-religious way the First Amendment had been interpreted. Particularly by unequivocally tossing the “Lemon Test,” the Court has stopped the active suppression of religious beliefs and practice. We ought not fear an impending theocracy, but instead welcome a redress to the unjust and ahistorical understandings of religion. [source]

Amen. Religion in gov’t doesn’t necessary mean a theocracy, but containing moral lawgivers if the religion is based on Judea-Christian beliefs. Otherwise, you might have corrupt and tyrannical lawgivers.

Information Warfare: An Interview With Dr. Robert Malone

From Zachary Emmanuel on Countere.com (June 16, 2022):

There are many moments one could call the definitive end of the 60s—the resignation of Nixon, the Manson murders, Altamont—but one last leprous gasp was heard from the decade’s corpse in February of 2022, when 76-year-old Canadian citizen Neil Young removed his music from Spotify in protest over The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Rogan’s transgression? Interviewing Dr. Robert Malone, a renowned pioneer in mRNA vaccine technology and horse farmer, about his concerns over mRNA vaccine technology. The hippie movement is diseased and dead.

……

What sources or institutions can we trust?

As a scientist, I'm trained not to trust anything.

In the medical world, my intellectual home is pathology. Pathology is essentially the quality control discipline for the entire medical care system. That's the nature of an autopsy—not just to ascertain the truth of an individual and their death, but to provide quality assurance for hospitals in the entire medical system. We're trained in pattern recognition, we detect and discern signal from noise, we’re trained to do this in the medical world.

As a scientist, I was rigorously trained to question everything, including myself. [I use] the intellectual structure called The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses [pdf]. The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses was originally published in Science Magazine in the late 1800s. So these are fundamental philosophies of medicine and clinical research that I'm speaking of.

The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses addresses the problem that exists for scientists, which is that we have a tendency to use a system of scientific questioning that we call hypothesis-driven research. The problem with hypothesis-driven research as a tool to discern truth is that it suffers from what's called “strong inference”—the tendency of a scientist to say, “I know the answer, I have a hypothesis, it’s my hypothesis, and I take ownership of it.”

What happens when you do that is that you will bend truth and reality and information to conform with your hypothesis. I don't normally discuss The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. I'm speaking about this because I know that your magazine [Countere] thinks about these kinds of underlying philosophical issues.

I've been trained to approach the world as a cluster of information. That information is divided into three compartments. One is, there's the Known, the things that we can all agree on: the Earth is generally round, it orbits the sun, gravity exists. These have been divisive at various times in human history, but now we're pretty convinced those are solid truths.

Then, there’s the world of Knowable but Unknown. If we apply the Scientific Method—which is increasingly a new priesthood, but that's another problem—if we rigorously apply the Scientific Method to this world of Knowable but Unknown things, we can gradually pull truth out of that information cloud and place it into the world of the Known.

Then, there's a third compartment of information. This is the Unknown Unknowable. And that's basically the world of faith. That's the intellectual space of things which we are not able to directly perceive or measure, which may or may not exist. And we can't really apply the Scientific Method to this thought space. We can't get data to test hypotheses. This is the world of philosophers and theologians.

I've been trained on the first compartment, the Known. Then there’s this middle compartment of stuff that’s Knowable but Unknown, and that’s the world I’ve always lived in, first as a young academic and then as a scientist and pathologist.

I had thought that I didn't have to apply that kind of intellectual rigor to the world of politics or public policy or economics. I thought that that was all being adequately handled by other experts that were similarly objective. Now we learned that absolutely not the case, and all of us are forced into becoming citizen-scientists-philosophers, whether or not we're trained.

I didn't choose to be one of the “Leaders of the Resistance,” to use a Star Wars metaphor. But having been placed in that position through circumstance—because I was early in speaking out about certain things, and I had a background that enabled me to legitimately question what was going on—I now find myself with the burden of responsibility of that leadership, and it's one that I don't take lightly. Feeling that responsibility results in some self-editing, some self-censorship. There are things that I observed, for instance, about the World Economic Forum that are so far beyond what average people can accept that I have to self-censor. Otherwise, I'll be labeled as a crazy person. [read more]

Even If The Polls Are Accurate, I Don’t Care. I Want My Country Back

From Brianna Lyman on The Federalist.com (Apr. 29, 2025):

The country has been suffering for decades economically, culturally and politically — and the propaganda press wants you to care about approval ratings. As President Donald Trump marks his first 100 days in office, headlines scream about “record-low” poll numbers. But here’s the thing: polls don’t fix nations — leaders do.

The same media that tried to convince us seven months ago that then-Vice President Kamala Harris had a legitimate chance to take Iowa could very well be running yet another psyop — bad polling — to malign Trump and stain his legacy. But let’s just pretend, for argument’s sake, that the propaganda press’ polling is accurate.

To borrow a line from Vice President JD Vance: “I don’t care, Margaret” — because I want my country back.

Even if what Trump is doing is “unpopular,” it’s necessary. Only a real leader can decipher the difference between what’s easy and what’s essential –and choose the hard path, even when it costs him politically.

A joint ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted by the left-leaning pollster Ipsos says Trump’s approval rating has fallen to 39 percent.

“The previous low in approval for a president at or near 100 days in office, in polls dating to 1945, was Trump’s 42 [percent] in 2017,” ABC’s Gary Langer reported. As my colleague Beth Brelje pointed out, “it is hard to trust ABC’s Trump coverage after its biased moderation against Trump in the 2024 presidential debates, or after the $15 million defamation settlement ABC agreed to pay Trump.”

Still, Langer reports that Americans “disapprove of Trump’s performance on six of seven issues tested…” including “stock market volatility, tariffs, foreign relations and the economy overall.”

Langer adds that 53% of Americans polled “said they disapprove of [Trump’s] handling of immigration.” [read more]

Amen! . Things are looking up poll-wise for President Trump. Since this article was written he has risen in the polls. 50% agree that the country is on the right track.

YouTuber headed to federal prison after he intentionally crashed airplane for clicks, cleaned up the wreckage: Prosecutors

From The Blaze.com (Dec. 5, 2023):

YouTuber will serve time in federal prison after he intentionally crashed an airplane, cleaned up the wreckage, and then lied about it to investigators.

On Monday, United States District Judge John F. Walter sentenced Trevor Jacob, 30, to six months in prison after Jacob pled guilty last June to one count of destruction and concealment with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation, said a press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Central District of California.

Jacob, a YouTube pilot and former Olympic snowboarder, began a YouTube channel 15 years ago and has since amassed more than 140,000 subscribers. His channel also attracted sponsors, including a company that sells various products such as wallets.

According to federal prosecutors, Jacob agreed to promote a wallet from this company in a video for his channel. But the video he made was not about wallets at all.

Instead, Jacob took off from Lompoc City Airport on November 24, 2021, on a solo flight with the expressed destination of Mammoth Lakes. Several cameras had been affixed to the plane, and Jacob had a video camera and a selfie stick as well.

Approximately 35 minutes after takeoff, Jacob, an experienced skydiver who was already wearing a parachute, indicated that he had "an engine out." He began swearing profusely and opened the plane door, looking nervously at the ground below. Within moments, he evacuated the plane, leaving it to crash in a remote part of Los Padres National Forest.

After landing in a dry brush of poisonous oak, Jacob wandered about for hours, first to locate the plane, then in a desperate search for water and safety. After sunset, he eventually found some ranchers who rescued him.

Jacob documented his journey throughout that harrowing episode.

Jacob also reported the crash to the National Transportation Safety Board two days after it happened. At that time, he agreed to provide the NTSB with "the coordinates of the downed plane and videos of the crash" and to preserve the wreckage so that the NTSB could examine it, the press release said. The FAA soon began an investigation as well.

Despite the promise not to meddle with the wreckage, a few weeks after the crash, Jacob and a friend located the crashed plane by helicopter. They then used straps to secure the plane to the helicopter and eventually transported it to Jacob's hangar at Lompoc City Airport. There, Jacob systematically dismembered the wreckage and deposited it, pieces at a time, in various garbage receptacles at the airport and elsewhere "with the intent to obstruct federal authorities from investigating the November 24 plane crash," the press release claimed.

Jacob then lied, saying that he did not know the location of the crash site. He also made a false report about the accident and misled investigators when he told them that he had to parachute from the plane because he could not find a safe place to land it.

In other words, Jacob got himself into a mess of his own making and then lied to cover it up. He even admitted as much in a video entitled "I Got My Pilots License Back! But Going to Prison...," posted to his YouTube channel on Monday. In that video, Jacob said that at one point, he was facing five felony charges that each carried a 20-year sentence.

He also called himself "an idiot" for pulling the stunt and said he felt "horrible" about it almost as soon as he hit the ground. "I screwed up," he said. He then added that he has paid dearly for his mistake. But he also indicated that he was motivated to fake the plane crash to fulfill a "bucket list" dream, not "to make money" or "gain online views," as alleged in the press release.

Whatever his reasons, Jacob will serve six months in the interest of justice and to deter other would-be daredevil YouTubers from trying something similar. "It appears that [Jacob] exercised exceptionally poor judgment in committing this offense," prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memorandum. "[Jacob] most likely committed this offense to generate social media and news coverage for himself and to obtain financial gain. Nevertheless, this type of ‘daredevil’ conduct cannot be tolerated."

Jacob's attorney did not respond to CNN's request for comment. [source]

Good! What a bonehead. He could have gotten himself killed. Airplane crashes are serious and not to be taken lightly or exploited for clicks.

Trump Admin Cracks Down On Texas Over In-State Tuition For Illegals

From Daily Caller.com (June 4, 2025):

The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved Wednesday to block the enforcement of Texas law granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants.

The DOJ filed suit against the state of Texas to stop the enforcement of state law requiring colleges and universities to provide in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, as the Trump administration intensifies its scrutiny of jurisdictions violating federal immigration laws. The “Dream Act” passed in 2001, allows those who are not lawfully present in the country to qualify for reduced tuition at public state colleges, which the DOJ argues is discriminatory to U.S. citizens from other states who are required to pay higher tuition rates to attend certain schools in Texas.

“That is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law, which expressly provides that ‘an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident,” the complaint reads.

Texas is home to the second-largest population of illegal immigrants, and approximately 57,000 of them were enrolled in its state universities as of 2022, according to the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi. “The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.”

The lawsuit follows two executive orders signed by President Donald Trump designed to crack down on illegal immigration.

One order, titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” directs all agencies to “ensure, to the maximum extent permitted by law, that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.” The other, “Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens,” instructs officials to take steps against state and local laws or policies that favor illegal immigrants over American citizens.

The Trump administration is cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” or jurisdictions that allegedly obstruct federal immigration law. In February, the DOJ sued Chicago, Cook County and the state of Illinois for its policies restricting cooperation between local police and federal immigration enforcement.

Neither the DOJ nor the Texas attorney general’s office responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. [source]

Good.  Glad he's doing that. Illegals should not be getting in-state tuition.

Trump Withdraws US From Global Climate Agreement

From Newsmax.com (Jan. 7):

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the United States will withdraw from the international agreement that has served as the foundation for global efforts to rein in climate change for 34 years.

The pact includes every other nation in the world, making it one of the most widely adopted international frameworks still in force.

In a social media post, the White House said Trump signed a memorandum directing the U.S. to exit 66 international organizations and treaties that "no longer serve American interests."

The White House did not immediately release a full list of the organizations and agreements covered by the order, but highlighted the climate agreement as a major component.

Trump and his advisers framed the withdrawal as part of a broader push to reclaim control of U.S. energy and economic policy and reduce what they view as outside constraints on domestic industry.

The decision is expected to draw swift backlash from U.S. allies and climate advocates who argue the agreement is central to coordinating emissions cuts and financing climate adaptation.

Environmental groups warned the withdrawal could weaken global momentum as countries face increasing climate-related disasters, including extreme heat, flooding, and wildfires.

Supporters of the move praised it as a rejection of international bureaucracy and what they call an unfair system that imposes disproportionate costs on the United States.

The withdrawal is likely to trigger diplomatic and legal questions over how quickly the U.S. can exit and what happens to prior commitments made under the agreement's framework.

White House officials said further actions related to U.S. participation in international organizations would follow. [source]

Good. The agreement is just another way to punish America.