Senator Chuck Schumer proudly stood before the cameras demanding
Resurfaced Video of Chuck Schumer Reveals…
NOTE: This article is an updated version of “Must-Watch: Senate Mocks Schumer as He Calls NYT Poll Biased” and now includes new details highlighting Senator Chuck Schumer’s 2005 push for a 27.5% tariff on China — exposing his long history of hypocrisy on trade and economic policy.
Back in 2005, Senator Chuck Schumer proudly stood before the cameras demanding a 27.5% tariff on all Chinese imports, claiming America had to “stand up to China” to protect American workers. He called China a “currency manipulator” and insisted tough trade penalties were the only way to stop Beijing from undercutting U.S. manufacturing. At that time, Schumer said America “cannot continue to allow China to cheat its way to the top.”
In his own words, Schumer declared, “It’s time to put some muscle into our trade relationship with China. For too long, the Chinese government has been playing games with the value of its currency in order to get a competitive edge. As a result, U.S. manufacturing jobs and profits are disappearing at an alarming rate. We can’t afford to let any more time go by without taking concrete and strong action.”
He wasn’t alone. Schumer’s bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham, threatened to slap China with a 27.5% tariff unless it stopped manipulating its currency. At the time, Schumer said,
“This report proves that our bipartisan legislation is needed as a tough-love effort to get the Chinese to stop playing games with their currency.”
But years later, when President Donald Trump took bold steps to confront Beijing using the very same tariff strategy, Schumer turned on his own words. He accused Trump of “starting a trade war” and claimed tariffs would “hurt consumers.”
The hypocrisy is impossible to ignore.
The same senator who once demanded tariffs to protect U.S. jobs now ridicules the president who actually followed through. Schumer’s transformation—from a Democrat willing to stand up to China to a partisan willing to attack any Trump policy—shows how far the party has drifted from its working-class roots.
Trump’s America First policy sought to correct decades of unfair trade deals and rebuild domestic manufacturing. Yet Schumer, who once called for the same thing, sided with globalist talking points instead.
Schumer’s reversal didn’t go unnoticed. Conservative commentators have resurfaced his old speeches, comparing them to his modern-day criticisms of Trump’s tariffs. The contrast paints a clear picture of political convenience.
Even the New York Times in 2005 described Schumer’s proposal as “a serious warning to China.” Today, the same outlet calls Trump’s trade policy “reckless.” The double standard could not be clearer.
Schumer’s credibility continues to unravel as his past statements resurface. His record shows that when it was politically safe to criticize China, he did. But when Trump took real action, Schumer suddenly changed his tune.
And it’s not just on trade where Schumer’s inconsistencies shine through.
Recently, the Senate Minority Leader faced ridicule after claiming a New York Times poll blaming Democrats for the government shutdown was “biased.”
The laughter erupted in the Senate chamber as Schumer argued that his hometown paper was unfairly portraying Democrats in a negative light.
The New York Times/Siena College poll surveyed 1,313 registered voters between September 22 and September 27. It found that 65 percent of respondents said Democrats should not shut down the government, while only 27 percent said they should. Even Democrats were split, with less than half supporting a shutdown if their demands were unmet.
Schumer dismissed the poll as biased, saying, “Now I know the leader is going to show a poll that says that the Democrats will be blamed for the shutdown. There are many more polls that show Republicans are blamed. The question in that poll is biased. Biased. It’s in the New York Times, but it’s biased.”
He added, “I don’t always believe in the New York Times, you can be sure of that. Neither do you.”
That admission triggered laughter across the Senate floor, even among Democrats who seemed caught off guard by Schumer’s sudden skepticism of his longtime media ally.
The irony is glaring: Schumer is now accusing the same outlet of bias that he routinely cites when convenient. It’s a familiar pattern. When facts expose Democrat failures, Schumer cries foul. When coverage benefits his party, he celebrates it.
The government officially shut down as the clock struck midnight on October 1 after Democrats blocked the Republicans’ clean continuing resolution.
The New York Times poll reflects what Americans already know: Democrats’ shutdown tactics are deeply unpopular. Yet Schumer, instead of facing the truth, chose to discredit the data.
“Americans are tired of political games,” one conservative outlet wrote in response to the viral Senate clip. “Schumer calling polls biased only exposes how out of touch Democrats are.”
Administration’s Plan to Cut Over 10,000 Federal Jobs Faces Judicial Block
Administration’s Plan to Cut Over 10,000 Federal Jobs Faces Judicial Block
Federal Judge Halts Trump Administration’s Plan to Fire Government Workers Amid Shutdown
A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from proceeding with mass firings of federal employees during the government shutdown. The ruling came shortly after a top White House official announced plans for deep cuts to the federal workforce, potentially impacting more than 10,000 government positions.
The legal intervention occurred on Wednesday when U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston granted the order, directly addressing the administration’s legal team. “The activities that are being undertaken here are contrary to the laws,” Illston stated, according to NBC News. Her decision temporarily stalls the administration’s efforts to issue reduction-in-force notices, or RIFs, which had already been sent to thousands of employees. The ruling is a significant development in a lawsuit filed by unions representing government workers who are challenging the legality of the cuts during a lapse in federal funding.
White House Outlines Aggressive Strategy for Job Reductions
Earlier on Wednesday, White House budget director Russell Vought detailed the administration’s strategy, expressing a commitment to significantly shrink the size of the federal government. Speaking on “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which was broadcasting from the White House, Vought, who serves as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the number of RIFs would likely grow substantially. “It could grow higher,” he commented. “I think we’ll probably end up being north of 10,000.”
Vought emphasized that the administration viewed the shutdown, which had entered its third week, as a unique chance to implement its agenda. “We want to be very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding,” Vought said. “We now have an opportunity to do that, and that’s where we’re going to be looking for our opportunities.” He further clarified that the figures previously disclosed in court documents related to the lawsuit were merely an initial estimate. Vought referred to the numbers as “just a snapshot,” adding, “I think it’ll get much higher, and we’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout this shutdown, because we think it’s important.”
By Friday, the White House had already sent RIF notices to approximately 4,200 federal employees, a number that was slightly revised downward on Tuesday. These actions prompted the legal challenge that led to Judge Illston’s restraining order.
Specific Agencies Targeted for Elimination
Vought provided specific examples of agencies and programs the administration intended to target for cuts. Among them were so-called Green New Deal programs at the Department of Energy and environmental justice initiatives within the Environmental Protection Agency. He also identified the Commerce Department’s Minority Business Development Agency and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) as entities facing potential reductions.
A primary target for Vought is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), for which he is currently the acting director. He stated a clear goal to dismantle the agency entirely, setting a firm timeline for its closure. Vought said he aims to close the CFPB within “the next two, three months.” He justified the move by claiming the agency has “the DNA of [Democratic Sen.] Elizabeth Warren” and has attempted to “weaponize” financial laws against smaller institutions. The White House did not provide an immediate response to CNBC’s request for comment following the judge’s order.
Impact on the Federal Workforce
The ongoing shutdown has already placed immense strain on the federal workforce. Government employees, whether furloughed or deemed “excepted” and required to work, are not receiving paychecks as the funding lapse continues. The threat of permanent job losses through RIFs has added another layer of uncertainty for hundreds of thousands of workers and their families across the country. The administration’s stated intent to use the shutdown to actively reduce the federal workforce marks a significant escalation in its approach to managing government operations during a funding dispute.
In a separate but related development, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum on Wednesday afternoon. The directive instructed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to utilize any available congressional funds to ensure active-duty military personnel continue to receive their pay without interruption. This action addresses a key group of federal employees, but does not extend to the civilian workforce affected by the broader shutdown and the proposed job cuts. The ongoing legal battle and the administration’s unwavering stance suggest a protracted conflict over the size and scope of the federal government.
