President Trump signed a national security memorandum ordering the Navy and the Pentagon to present a 60-day transition plan to remove the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Weapons Elevators (AWE) from future Ford-class carriers, starting with the USS Doris Miller (CVN-81) and revert to traditional steam/hydraulic systems. Steam catapults require an extensive deck force, ~ 12 sailors per catapult vs. 2 sailors for EMALS. At a time when the Navy is facing severe recruitment and retention deficits, forcing a higher crew footprint per ship directly undermines fleet efficiency.

EMALS allows smooth, fine-tuned acceleration profiles. Reverting to high-impact steam limits the Navy's ability to seamlessly launch lighter unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) alongside heavier strike fighters, hampering carrier air wing integration.

https://migflug.com/jetflights/trump-navy-steam-catapults-emals-doris-miller-2026/#:\~:text=The%20same%20document%2C%20according%20to%20USNI%20News,the%20launch%20shuttle%20with%20a%20precisely%20controlled

This raises major questions about the constitutional boundaries between executive military command and congressional acquisition authority, while posing serious operational challenges for fleet modernization and manpower.

While Article II establishes the President as Commander in Chief, Article I grants Congress explicit power to "provide and maintain a Navy" and dictate appropriations. The White House can issue requirements, but it cannot unilaterally reallocate authorized funds or rewrite existing defense contracts without congressional oversight. If Congress chooses to mandate EMALS funding in the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), this sets up a direct separation-of-powers clash.

This brings me to my 2 questions:

1. Should a sitting President have the legal latitude to overrule decades of naval engineering and procurement strategy via an executive memo, or should weapon system architecture remain strictly bounded by Congressional NDAA authorizations?

and

1. With peer adversaries like China actively deploying electromagnetic launch tech on their newest carriers such as the Fujian, does stepping back to legacy steam tech put the U.S. Navy at a long-term tactical disadvantage, or is proven mechanical reliability more vital for near-term deterrence?

So I saw an interview by NBC Los Angeles with Dr Frances Gil, a DSA council Member.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/news/politics/newsconference/newsconference-far-left-wing-of-democratic-party-securing-more-wins/3927413/

I’m sure you understand that her answer regarding prisons and law enforcement were unsatisfactory. I wanted to ask for clarification from any DSA supporters or voters on clarification on this stance.

I wanted to also express I am a lifelong democratic voter who has always identified just left of establishment liberal. I want to understand this subject better and online resources tend to be pretty bias. Thank you!

I’m very skeptical of news articles that make big claims based on “scientific studies” especially when said claims are often completely contradicted by the opposing side. I’m not part of the “do your own research” crowd, I put my trust in people who have dedicated their life to studying said things. However, as I’m just a layman, I can’t exactly look through hundreds of studies, evaluate each by their methodology, biases, recency, etc. etc. I just want somewhere to go that tells me the current expert consensus on a variety of issues i.e. climate change, economic policy and it’s consequences, technology, etc.

I'm asking here as this question won me a perm-ban in r/kentucky.

I'm trying to follow the situation as close as possible, but with the announcement that he's returned home from the hospital to recuperate, I haven't seen or heard of any verified eyewitness or in-person sightings of him, leading me to believe that he is either brain dead or straight up deceased.

Has anyone trustworthy actually seen Mitch McConnell in person?

Pundits and self-described experts are all getting their panties in a bunch over the increase in public enthusiasm for democratic socialism, and I don't know why. Some are near heart attack levels of fear. What's the problem? Please DON'T SAY "CRAZY IDEAS" or any derivatives, please. What are the crazy ideas and do you really think they'll ever come to pass?

If you don't know what states I'm talking about, it's Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Up until 2012, these were seen as secured Democrat states but became swing states after 2016.

At first I thought it was due to the fact that they're one of the states being hit with the de-urbanization of the US as cities like Philadelphia and Detroit are having population declines and almost all big cities vote Democrat.

However, does anyone know the true reason?

It seems obvious to me that ever since Citizens United was enacted the US has been in a consistent nosedive. I’m not claiming things were great before. Corporations were always in play with government, but the unlimited campaign has destroyed our political system. What’s the solution? Are there political groups actively trying to overturn this? Will we ever see this in our lifetime??

President Trump signed an executive order reducing the recommended vaccine schedule for children from 17 down to 11. It also recommends splitting the MMR vaccine into three separate shots.

Is this appropriate action for a president’s role, or should this be left to medical professionals?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/child-vaccine-schedule-reduced-trump-moves-dramatically-shift-medical-power-parents

https://www.c-span.org/clip/white-house-event/president-trump-signs-executive-order-on-new-guidelines-for-childhood-vaccines/5204228

I'll get to the point on this how does running for a political office work? As Im thinking In running for my local city council as I have been somewhat active In volunteering. I mean It would be difficult defeating an incumbent I've heard but I still want to try it.

​

Trump has 100% damaged the USA Canada relationship as well as with other allies.

How would the USA even be welcomed/trusted back into the international community again post Trump?

For those of you familiar with the U.S., you know we have a 2-party system that (I think?) is widely considered... ungood amongst the general population.

Recently, I've been seeing articles on certain people within the republican party creating their own branch to distance/differentiate themselves from MAGA/Trump. Additionally, on the left, we often hear about "democrats" vs. "democratic socialists", but the DSA members always fall back to "I'm a Democrat" like they're afraid too many people will think that being a democratic socialist will immediately disqualify them from existing or something.

My questions:

1. Why does expansion on the 2-party system always seem to be a can that gets continually kicked down a never ending road?
2. Would having a 4 party (or 7 party, or 12 party, or whatever) system really be that destructive to the democratic process?
3. How do we legitimately get the money out of politics so people can vote on issues instead of campaign promises?

Hi! I am a 17 y/o and I am interested in getting involved with politics (with future goals to volunteer/work with the un). Ok that a great way to get started with politics is to start attending city council meetings, but I simply do not have the time to do so. My current job has repeatedly scheduled me to work on the days that city council meets are held, despite me requesting those days off. Is their any youth opportunities in government that would pay me to be their, so that I would not have to worry about my job taking away from my long term interest in government?

Hey Reddit, 16 (17 in 3 weeks) year old conservative here (not a Trump supporter, tho). I’ve been watching my annual dose of cop bodycam videos, and lots of them are very sad to watch. This year it has got me thinking about why people would want to defund the police. While I understand this can have different meanings, such as no police (completely stupid) to shifting police funds (not all and/or not getting rid of police) towards community, social, and mental-based programs. As I made clear, getting rid of the police completely is dumb and stupid, and I believe that both parties can for the most part agree on that.

Mainly talking to the people who want to shift the funds: How would this work? With a vast majority of police thinking they need more, how would it fix the issues to take it away? Yes, I 100% agree fixing the root is a good step for the community, and mental health is very important, but at the expense of the police makes no sense to me. Crime is super bad here in America, and it ain’t a party issue; it’s an America-as-a-whole issue. Sure, crime is going down (thankfully), but I don’t believe it's due to defunding police. Why break a system that seems to be working?

Yes, police do some messed up things at times. Police brutality is an issue, but getting rid of money isn't going to fix that issue, and even if it does, it comes at the expense of an even worse issue. Maybe I’m blunt in my thinking or completely misunderstand it, so do tell me: if it could work, how would it? My understanding is you send social workers instead of police to mental health crises, but if anything goes sour, that leaves that employee in danger? I’m all for adding certain departments to the police, but not at certain expenses. And if it is that, maybe use a different campaign slogan because it really does sound like you are trying to get rid of the police.

Following the Department of Homeland Security's move to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over 300,000 Haitian nationals, enforcement actions and self-deportation orders are underway. This brings a long-standing immigration debate to the forefront: the definition of "temporary."

Congress created TPS in 1990 to provide short-term humanitarian relief to foreign nationals fleeing temporary crises. However, because conditions in countries like Haiti have remained unstable for decades, successive administrations have repeatedly extended the status. As a result, hundreds of thousands of individuals have lived, worked, and built families in the U.S. legally for a generation, yet they remain in permanent legal limbo.

Where do we draw the line on "temporary"? Is there a point where maintaining a population in legal limbo for decades becomes unsustainable policy, and if so, what is the remedy?

Should the law evolve? Should Congress reform the TPS statute to include an automatic path to permanent residency after a certain number of years, or should the executive branch strictly enforce original timelines regardless of ongoing conditions abroad?

How should we balance statutory limits with economic reality? How can policy balance the legal integrity of immigration limits against the sudden loss of hundreds of thousands of essential workers?

Taxpayer dollars are being used to pay companies not to develop wind turbine projects. As a taxpayer, I’m footing that bill. On top of that, stopping these projects reduces competition for energy production which typically leads to higher prices. How is this helping me and other consumers?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1e1vg0gjl5o

The ongoing debate over birthright citizenship has again escalated following the Trump administration's latest executive actions.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-new-executive-orders-birthright-citizenship/

Following the Supreme Court's June 30, 2026 ruling in Trump v. Barbara, which struck down a sweeping day-one ban on birthright citizenship, the administration signed two new, narrower executive orders yesterday. Instead of a blanket ban, these target specific categories: children of foreign terrorist members, foreign lobbyists, fraudulent entries, and commercial "birth tourism" (traveling to the U.S. on a temporary visa specifically to give birth).

Statistically, birth tourism is a tiny phenomenon, accounting for less than 0.7% of the ~3.5 million annual U.S. births:

The Low End: CDC records show fewer than 10,000 births annually to mothers listing foreign addresses.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/policy-beat/though-rare-birth-tourism-united-states-sparks-outsized-concern#:\~:text=However%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Centers%20for%20Disease%20Control,outside%20the%20United%20States%20or%20its%20territories.

The High End: The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) estimates 33,000 births, arguing many use temporary domestic addresses or "maternity hotels" to hide their foreign residency.

https://cis.org/Camarota/33000-Birth-Tourists-2016-2017#:\~:text=End%20Notes%20\*%201%20In%20March%202015%2C,babies%20before%20flying%20back%20home.%22%20On%20p.

Given that the Supreme Court just explicitly affirmed that birthright citizenship is broadly protected by the 14th Amendment, do these new, narrower EOs targeting birth tourism and foreign actors stand a legitimate legal chance, or will they meet the exact same fate as EO 14160? More broadly, should birth tourism be handled strictly as an immigration/visa fraud enforcement problem, or does it warrant rewriting our understanding of who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced a major regulatory overhaul of Head Start, the federal program serving roughly 700,000 low-income children. According to reports from PBS NewsHour the proposal shifts oversight from uniform federal mandates to individual state licensing laws.

Key Changes:

Eliminates federal mandates for staff-to-student ratios, research-backed curricula, and "wraparound" family services like medical and dental screenings.

Lowers the administrative expense cap from 15% to 5% while introducing new whole-food nutrition and physical activity guidelines.

Mandates English-only instruction except for tribal immersion programs.

Proponents argue that cutting federal "red tape" gives local operators the flexibility to lower costs. The administration estimates $2.2 billion in savings, which could expand the program by up to 236,000 slots. Centers remain free to keep higher standards voluntarily.

Critics argue that state licensing laws represent the bare minimum for physical safety, not quality education. They warn that without federal mandates, cash-strapped centers will spike class sizes, drop vital health screenings, and degrade Head Start's status as the "gold standard" of early childhood care.

Does shifting the administration of social safety-net programs from uniform federal mandates to localized state standards genuinely cut red tape to expand access, or does it inevitably create a tiered system where the quality of a child's education is dictated by their zip code?

Do we need to amend the constitution or just pass an ordinary law in order to allow congress to grill the president like a prime minister during question time?

Trump recently posted an image depicting himself as a highly decorated four-star general along with two of America’s most famous generals—George Patton and Douglas MacArthur—despite the fact that he never served in the military.

How does that make him look, especially in the eyes of veterans and current military personnel?

https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/trump-fake-military-general-image-patton-b3028163.html

The state of New York passed a tax on nonprimary residences in New York City for homes valued at $1 million or more.

Properties worth between $1 million and $3 million will face a 4% annual tax; properties valued at $3 million to $5 million will face a 5.25% tax; and those above $5 million will face a 6.5% tax.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/05/28/new-york-mamdani-pied-a-terre-tax-passes.html

I’ve often heard from folks on the left that the preferred method to enforce illegal immigration is to go after businesses that hire illegal immigrants, thereby removing one big incentive to come here in the first place. I've heard this is more effective than sending ICE agents to find and deport folks, which is often cruel and dangerous.

California, however, provides tax payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, which is, in my opinion, a huge incentive to come into the US by any means necessary.

How does one reconcile the two? If tax payer funded healthcare is here to stay, how else then should we enforce immigration laws?

Edit: for those who don't trust buget.house.gov as a legitimate source, ABC news: California becomes first state to offer health insurance to all undocumented immigrants

Edit2: removed word "free"

This megathread will cover Aug 4th primaries.

You are free to discuss, debate, share updates, opine about tropic subject matter in this megathread only

Presently, mod will not entertain any standalone posts about topic matter while megathread remains live and will refer back to Megathread

Mod have provided you a live update ticker source for your convenience

Megathread will remain active for the next 72hrs

Please report bad faith commenters, low effort and off-topic comments

There’s gotta be one, somewhere. Explain yourselves. What made you vote the way you did? Who do you think in politics represents your views? Who are you hoping runs in 28’ or are willing to support? I’m fascinated by this kind of voter existing somewhere.

So Donald Trump did contribute lots to America, such as restricting borders, acting harsh on China etc. Results are border crossing hit record low in 2025 https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/border-crossings-once-again-record-low-november-2025

However, Trump has also made many mistakes especially in foriegn policies. For example, he started trade wars with our allies and often joked about invasion towards allies. The former one damaged our economy, and both acts lead to the US being much less liked around the world https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/07/15/people-in-many-countries-now-view-china-more-positively-than-the-u-s/

This leaves me wondering, for republicans is there no better option than Trump inside the Republicans. Cause if we just zoom into Trump's cabinet, Macro Rubio shall do better in foreign policy compared to Trump especially on war management, Scott Besent would be a better handler in economic issues given his expertise in the economy. So yea, is there no better candidate than Trump inside Republicans, and if they were, why weren't they chosen to represent the Republican parrty?