Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was laughed off the podium after dismissing a New York Times poll showing that Americans blame Democrats for the government shutdown.
“Now I know the leader is going to show a poll that says that Democrats will be blamed for the shutdown. There are many more polls that show Republicans are to blame. The question in that poll is biased,” Schumer said, referring to the New York Times/Siena College survey.
“In the New York Times, but it’s biased,” he continued, prompting Republicans across the chamber to erupt into laughter. “I don’t always believe the New York Times … You can be sure of that. Neither do you.”
Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have pushed the Trump administration to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits and guarantee taxpayer-funded health care “for all.” Republicans and the White House rejected the proposals, saying Democrats were demanding taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants.
“If you look at the original they did with this negotiation, it was a $1.5 trillion spending package, basically saying the American people want to give massive amounts of money, hundreds of billions of dollars to illegal aliens for their health care, while Americans are struggling to pay their health care bills,” Vice President JD Vance said following a White House meeting with congressional leaders.
While Democrats were divided on whether to shut down the government over their demands, Republicans and independents have remained firmly opposed.
The NYT/Siena poll, conducted just before the Oct. 1 deadline, found that only 27 percent of respondents supported Democrats shutting down the government if their demands were not met.
WATCH:
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said that Democrats
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said that Democrats bear the blame for the pain of a government shutdown, as President Donald Trump and his budget chief moved forward with identifying federal programs to cut.
“This is the way the system works. This is [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s decision, is to hand … the keys to the kingdom to the president,” Johnson, R-La., told reporters. “He has put himself in that situation, and it’s completely unnecessary. The president takes no pleasure in this.”
Without the measure, agencies have begun contingency plans, delaying payments and preparing to reduce operations.
Johnson’s remarks came hours after Trump posted on Truth Social that he would meet with Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought, calling him “he of PROJECT 2025 Fame,” to discuss which federal agencies and programs should face cuts.
“I have a meeting today with Russ Vought … to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent,” Trump wrote.
“I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity. They are not stupid people, so maybe this is their way of wanting to, quietly and quickly, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” he added.
Under Vought’s direction, the administration has already frozen billions of dollars in funding for New York City subway infrastructure projects. Federal agencies are carrying out shutdown protocols that include delaying payments to employees and reviewing spending priorities against White House policy.
“As you know, whomever is seated in the chair at OMB during the shutdown has to do the same thing,” Johnson said. “We had a 45-minute telephone conference with [Vought] yesterday.
“He talked to all the House Republicans. He takes no pleasure in this … because Russ has to sit down and decide, because he’s in charge of that office, which policies, personnel and which programs are essential, and which are not. That is not a fun task, and he is not enjoying that responsibility,” he added.
One sentence.
That’s all it took.
“I’ll take a pickax to it if I have to.”
When Kerry Kennedy — daughter of Robert F. Kennedy and niece of John F. Kennedy — delivered those words, Washington felt the aftershock almost instantly.
What followed wasn’t just outrage or applause. It was something deeper and more combustible: a renewed national argument about power, memory, and who gets to define the Kennedy legacy in modern America.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has long been treated as sacred ground — a space meant to celebrate art, creativity, and unity beyond ideology. Named in honor of JFK, the Center has traditionally stood apart from the partisan battles that consume Washington.
That’s why recent controversy surrounding the use — and interpretation — of the Kennedy name at the institution has struck such a nerve.
Critics argue that decisions involving the Kennedy Center risk politicizing a national cultural landmark and diluting the legacy of a family whose name is inseparable from American history. Supporters counter that silence is no longer neutral — and that defending the Kennedy legacy requires confrontation, not quiet reverence.
Into that tension stepped Kerry Kennedy.
This wasn’t an offhand comment from a pundit or protester. Kerry Kennedy carries a surname that still echoes with ideals of service, sacrifice, and unfinished promise. Her work as a human rights advocate has often placed her in the center of moral and political debates — but this time, the conflict was personal.
Her statement was read by many as a line in the sand:
a declaration that the Kennedy name cannot be invoked without accountability.
Supporters praised her bluntness, calling it long overdue — a refusal to allow the family legacy to be used in ways they believe betray its values.
Opponents accused her of inflaming division, arguing that such rhetoric risks turning shared national heritage into a partisan weapon.
Either way, the reaction was immediate — and intense.
More than half a century after JFK’s assassination, the Kennedy name still carries extraordinary weight. It represents hope to some. Hypocrisy to others. And to many, it remains a mirror reflecting America’s unresolved struggles over power, justice, and identity.
What this moment has made clear is that the legacy is not settled history. It is living, disputed, and emotionally charged.
And when a Kennedy herself suggests tearing something down — even symbolically — it forces the country to ask uncomfortable questions:
Who owns history?
Who decides what a name stands for?
And when does preservation become distortion?
This isn’t just about a building or a plaque. It’s about authority — moral, cultural, and historical. It’s about whether national institutions can ever truly stand above politics, or whether they inevitably become battlegrounds for meaning.
Insiders say the debate has only begun.
Cultural leaders are weighing in.
Political figures are choosing sides.
And the Kennedy family’s internal divisions are once again playing out on a public stage.
One thing is certain: the argument Kerry Kennedy reignited isn’t going away quietly.
Love it or loathe it, the Kennedy legacy still has the rare ability to stop the country mid-sentence and force a reckoning.
And with emotions rising, language sharpening, and history itself on trial, this latest showdown may become one of the most defining cultural clashes in years.
