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.”
A federal judge overseeing the Justice Department’s push to unseal grand jury records from Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal case has requested more information before issuing a decision. In a four-page order filed Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer stated he intends to rule “expeditiously” but noted the DOJ’s initial motion lacks sufficient detail to address the legal standards required for disclosing secret grand jury material,
Engelmayer directed the DOJ to submit a supplemental brief by July 29 that explains in greater depth its justification for seeking the release of the records. The brief must also clarify whether prosecutors have already reviewed the transcripts and if victims were notified prior to the filing. Additionally, the DOJ must file — under seal — an index of all relevant grand jury materials, the full transcripts, a redacted version proposed for public release, and any other pertinent documents.
Defense attorneys for Maxwell also responded on Tuesday, requesting access to the grand jury transcripts before formally stating their position. “We have not seen them, and our understanding is that they have never been provided to the defense in their entirety,” wrote defense lawyer David Oscar Markus. He emphasized that reviewing the transcripts is necessary for Maxwell’s legal team to offer a meaningful response. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly does not oppose allowing the defense access to these materials.
Separately, the judge set an August 5 deadline for victims in the case to submit their views on whether the grand jury records should be made public. The case has gained renewed attention after President Donald Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to release additional Epstein-related files, citing transparency concerns. Bondi confirmed that Blanche will soon meet with Maxwell and stated that the DOJ is prepared to hear any credible evidence she may provide involving crimes against victims.
The move has sparked political backlash, particularly from Democrats who view it as a politicization of the justice system. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) accused Blanche of acting as a “political agent” for Trump and potentially offering Maxwell leniency in exchange for politically useful information. Meanwhile, former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News that while no official “client list” exists, some redacted names in FBI reports may implicate prominent figures. He mentioned George Mitchell, Bill Richardson, and Ehud Barak as individuals named in victim interviews but stressed that accusations alone do not equate to guilt.