Invidious Discrimination

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise with much to say, but before going into my message, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), a colleague who has done an exceptional job representing the 33rd District in the State of Texas. After he has finished, I will then continue with my message. Recognizing the Life and Legacy of Sylvia Collins

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the way Mr. Veasey has conducted this time, and I wish him the very best.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise. And I rise, Mr. Speaker, as I always do, unbought, unbossed, unafraid, and now I must also add unelected, a liberated Democrat, truly liberated, liberated to the extent that while I have been censured, I have not been silenced.

While I have now been unelected, I will not be silent. My agenda remains the same. It is still the agenda that deals with the voices of those that are not heard in this House as they should be, the voices of the least, the last, and the lost--the least among us, persons who don't inherit a legacy of much, but actually a legacy of poverty, not plenty; persons who are among the lost in a society as rich as ours where persons find themselves lost in places of despair, living in places that you and I would not consider a place habitable. The least, the lost, and, of course, the last. The last would be those persons who are the last to be hired and the first to be fired--the least, the last, and the lost.

But I also represent other people, and I will continue to do so. I represent those persons who suffer invidious discrimination. They are among the LGBTQIA+ community. They are women. They are persons who are of the Islamic faith. They are persons who are currently suffering from anti-Semitism. They are persons who are suffering because of the color of their skin.

Today, I rise to speak on the topic of invidious discrimination emanating from the Presidency. I call to the attention of the listening audience and viewing audience an article from the Huffington Post, the HuffPost. This article is titled: ``Trump Used His Go-To Insult In Interview After Knicks Loss''--that would not be the last game, of course, the game prior to this one--``And Experts Say It's A Pattern.'' We are talking about his go-to insult, and I must commend Ms. Katie Mather for the outstanding job she has done with this article. It has the date June 9, 2026, as its date of publication.

I would like to read some excerpts from this because I think it would give us an opportunity to understand how the Trump Presidency has not only impacted what he does but also some other aspects of society. So this is truly invidious discrimination emanating from the Presidency.

Let me read some excerpts. The first reads: ``'First Take' host Stephen A. Smith slammed President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after Trump told reporters on Monday night that Smith wouldn't be a good fit to run for President because `you need a high IQ.' ''

My dear friends, if I may say brothers and sisters because I truly believe that there is but one race, and that is the human race, so if I may just say, my dear brothers and sisters. Friends, you may call Stephen A. Smith many things. I probably would not agree with anything that is negative. I don't know a negative side of him. I know that he is opinionated, but that is not unusual in the United States of America to have people who are opinionated. It is especially not unusual here in the House of Representatives.

So you might call him many things, but I don't believe that you can call him a person in need of a high IQ, implying that he has a low IQ, and it goes on to say this in this article.

Stephen A. Smith is brilliant, and I say this without question, reservation, or hesitation. He is one of the most brilliant people who I have seen in the sports arena, but he goes beyond sports. He talks on a multiplicity of subjects all the time, and he equips himself well on every topic that I have heard him speak on. Now, you don't have to agree with a person to understand the brilliance of the person. He has a brilliant mind, and I do believe that the President made this comment for dubious reasons.

So let me continue reading from excerpts in the article:

``Trump's `low IQ' comment against Smith has racist implications . . . '' This is what the article says: `` . . . racist implications and is referred to as a `racial dog whistle' by linguists and political experts, said Dr. Karrin Anderson, a communications studies professor at Colorado State University.''

This professor is making the point that when the President says these things about persons with low IQs, he is actually signaling to others. It is a racist dog whistle.

The article goes on to say: `` `What distinguishes a dog whistle from just an insult is it is designed to sound innocuous . . .' '' the dog whistle is designed to sound as though, oh, it is harmless, just another thing someone is saying to be funny or cute. Well, not this dog whistle.

The article goes on to say: `` `. . . Anderson, who teaches courses in rhetoric, political communication, and gender and communication, told HuffPost: `It is meant to be deniable. The virtue, the rhetorical appeal of a dog whistle, is you can deny that it functions in the way that it is actually designed to function.' ''

So this dog whistle is designed to appear to be innocuous and harmless, but its functionality is rooted in something else.

He goes on to say: ``It's a term that white supremacists have historically used against people of color, and it's not the first time the President has publicly used it. Last month, he called House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries a `thug' and a `low IQ' person on Truth Social.''

This is where he speaks much of what he says to the public.

But this term ``thug,'' let me focus on it for just a moment. Hakeem Jeffries, he calls a thug. That is demeaning. He does this to demean people of color, but then he adds the injury to this insult of low IQ. You can accuse Hakeem Jeffries of many things, but you cannot, in any way, produce the empirical evidence to show that he is a person with a low IQ. He is a brilliant man, a brilliant person who has the appeal that most people understand to be that of a person with great intellect.

So when the President calls him a thug and a low-IQ person on Truth Social, and he did this in April, this was a means by which he could demean and insult and use the term that those who live in the world of white supremacy embrace. This is something that they readily embrace, and they understand the dog whistle. They understand what the President really means when he says ``thug'' and ``low IQ.''

Let me go on.

``In April, he called Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson the `new low-IQ person on the Court.' ''

The `new low-IQ person on the Court.'

``During the 2024 Presidential election, Trump repeatedly described former Vice President Kamala Harris as a `low-IQ individual.' ''

Note what all of these people have in common: color. African Americans, persons who have reached great heights in terms of their professions, persons who are making a difference in a very positive way in our country. But the President would demean them by challenging their intellect and, in so doing, appeal to white supremacists who still believe that people of color have low intellect.

Reading on:

`` `He applies it . . .' '' meaning his low IQ comment, `` `. . . indiscriminately to Black people in different walks of life and professions.' '' This is what Anderson said.

`` `That's where it reveals that it is a racist dog whistle because it doesn't relate to anything else.' ''

It goes on to say: ``Experts say the `low IQ' insult has a storied past.

``There is a long history in the U.S. of this `low IQ' dog whistle.'' This is Anderson speaking again.

It goes on to say: `` `During the colonial era, White male elites took for granted that they were cognitively superior to women and people of color, and thus, divinely appointed for leadership.' ''

Well, that explains a lot of the sexism that we have seen. That explains a lot of what we have seen when persons decide that they are simply going to reduce you to something less than human by assigning you to the primate family and calling you an ape or saying that you are related to the apes or somehow you are an ape, reducing people of color to animals that are not as superior life forms as some others.

These animals are not persons. They exist, and we want them to exist, but we don't want people to compare human beings to these animals, and the President does this. He has compared a former President and First Lady to apes. We don't like to talk about this, I have found, but there are many people who would rather just see this kind of go away and let's let that just be something that he has done.

Well, the President never apologized for it after saying that. Someone else actually posted it, but he never apologized. By the way, I don't ask him to apologize. I ask him to just tell the truth: That this was wrong, that it should not have been posted, and that he would not allow this to happen again. That would be more suitable for the means by which he can atone for his transgression, but he hasn't done any of that. He tends to double down.

Well, this article goes on to remind us: `` 'IQ was used to justify heinous behavior like racial segregation and forced sterilizations.' '' Now, this is something that another social scientist, Figueroa, has called to our attention in this article.

Forced sterilization because of IQ actually happened in the United States of America. We have much to atone for. As we approach this great anniversary, we would have people believe that all is well.

All is not well. All won't be well until some of our transgressions have been properly addressed.

This notion that you should sterilize a woman because you believe that she has a low IQ is more than simply a crime that is statutorily illegal. It is really a crime against humanity to engage in this kind of conduct. It actually happened.

After we ended the enslavement of African Americans in this country, Africans from America, living in America, who were, at the time, and much of the time not declared citizens--so let's just say Africans in America.

After slavery was ended, the enslavement of people after some 240 years, the people who had a hand in building this very facility, the Capitol, the White House, the ones who built roads and bridges, the people who planted seeds and harvested crops, they were the economic foundational mothers and fathers of the country.

After we ended the enslavement of these persons, then we embarked upon convict leasing, which is another form of racism. Slavery itself was rooted in racism. This whole notion of convict leasing allowed people who violated some code to be placed in the hands of other persons, to be leased out from the government or some arm of the government. Many of them died as leased persons, those convicts who had been leased.

There is a grave near Houston, Texas, with 95 bodies in it, persons who were convicts and leased, all in a common grave.

This kind of behavior was justified based upon IQ. They were less than human. They were akin to the lower forms of animals that we would call primates. As such, you can do almost anything to them that you would like, and people did.

This forced sterilization and this segregation was a form of invidious discrimination and was rooted in racism.

Many of us alive today in this country experienced lawful racism in the form of segregation. Many of us went to back doors, drank from colored water fountains, sat in the back of the bus, and were locked up in the bottom of the jail. Many of us suffered this form of invidious discrimination, known as segregation, which is rooted in racism.

We the people decided that we would no longer have this form of invidious discrimination exist lawfully. We ended it lawfully. We didn't end it as it relates to the practice. Invidious discrimination against people of color still exists to this day in this country.

People who would say that it doesn't exist, and say that repeatedly, those who are in high places, those comments are based in racism. If you are saying repeatedly that people of color are not discriminated against in this country, and you are repeatedly saying it in public spaces, you, my friend, are a racist. You are. Nobody bothered to tell you before now. I know you didn't get the word.

I am here to tell you that people who do this, to demean other people, to say that they are less than, that is racist rhetoric. Persons who do this regularly, with intentionality, you are a racist.

As I indicated, IQ was used to justify heinous behavior, like racial segregation and forced sterilization. ``That thinking,'' it reads here, ``was amplified in the late 1900s by a popular book titled `The Bell Curve,' which falsely claimed that IQ differences between racial groups were biological.

``Phrenology, another form of race science that claimed skull shapes determined intelligence, has also been completely discredited by the scientific community because of how often it was used to uphold scientific racism and gender stereotypes throughout the U.S. and Europe.''

Friends, people of color and women have suffered greatly in this country under the color of law, under the guise of science that was rooted in racism.

We have to change this. This cannot continue in this country. Until we change this, we cannot truly say that all persons are treated equally. Although they are created equally, they are not treated equally. We cannot say that liberty and justice for all exists when we address ourselves and the Pledge of Allegiance. It just doesn't happen. It is not the case. There is not liberty and justice for all in the United States of America.

Let us continue. It reads: ``Roughly 8 in 10 of Trump's `low IQ' attacks target Black and Brown people, data shows.''

We are talking about empirical evidence.

``Trump has been using this dog whistle frequently. Between January 20, 2025, and April 25, 2026, Trump posted `low IQ,' or a variation of the phrase, 24 times.''

Let me stop for just a moment and deal with the variation of the phrase. There are some people who don't say low IQ. They will say stupid. They will say: Oh, Black people are stupid, or they will say a particular Black person is stupid. In so doing, they will say: Now, I really mean this in the sense of the way the word stupid is defined. They use stupidity. They use this in the sense of referring to the person's intellect. Again, it is another means by which persons are using dog whistles to demean people of color.

This dog whistle that the President uses has permeated what I call racist radio. Yes, racist radio exists. Not all radio is racist, but there is a large segment, a subset of radio, that is racist.

They are on the air daily, utilizing terms such as stupidity, depicting people of color as less than human beings. They have done it to the extent that they have normalized it within the circle that they reside in. They have normalized it. People just come to accept it.

Well, I don't. I refuse to accept what racist radio does routinely.

The President, who is at the top of this chain of unscrupulous behavior, shapes the tone and tenor for all of these things that happen beneath him. Much of what we are seeing today is being perpetrated and perpetuated because the President does it. Why can't others do it? People see it this way.

We have this racist radio that is constantly perpetrating and perpetuating racist dog whistles in the form of IQ, in the form of depicting persons as less than human, who are persons of color, and in the form of using language other than low IQ, such as stupid. Stupidity has become another dog whistle for racist radio.

They know that I speak truth. They rarely have the truth spoken such that they are exposed. Those of you who are listening to it and enjoying it, you are enjoying racism. As long as you continue to enjoy it and support it, buy the products being advertised on those stations, you are supporting racism.

Racism exists in the public arena because, in many instances, people are buying the products that the racists purvey. The racists sell the products on their radio stations. They advertise the products. You buy them from those stations, and as a result you are supporting racism. I refuse to do it.

Racism is something that we have to combat along with sexism, anti- Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, all of the various invidious phobias.

Let me repeat this. It bears repeating. ``Roughly 8 in 10 of Trump's `low IQ' attacks target Black or Brown people, data shows.'' It goes on to say: ``Trump has been using this dog whistle frequently. Between January 20, 2025, and April 25, 2026, Trump posted ``low IQ,'' or a variation of the phrase, 24 times, according to a study by Truthout, a nonprofit news organization. Eight out of every 10 posts were directed at Black or Brown people. In the first 10 months of his second term, Trump did not refer to any White person as someone with `low IQ.' ''

I am going to repeat that. ``In the first 10 months of his second term, Trump did not refer to any White person as someone with `low IQ.' ''

These are the kinds of things people don't want to hear, but you have to know the truth so that you can free your minds. I read someplace that if you know the truth, it will set you free. I want to free your minds. This will free you, some of you. Some of you choose not to be free, and there is nothing that will be said to free your minds because you choose not to be free.

There is no one so blind as he who chooses not to see. Not as he who cannot see, but he who chooses not to see. There are many people who choose not to see.

No White person referred to with ``low IQ.''

The article goes on to indicate: ``It is designed to signal to a specific audience that a speaker shares their ideology or belief systems.'' That is what these dog whistles are designed to do, to say to other people, hey, don't worry, I have got your back, I believe, just as you believe, that they have low IQs, so it is okay for you to say it on racist radio now. It is all right. You can call persons stupid. You can say low IQ. You can do it with impunity because the President is doing it.

Well, it is not all right, and you are not going to do it with impunity because you are going to be exposed.

This goes on to indicate that: ``[Trump] uses it to refer to Black people and, predominantly but not exclusively, Black women.'' ``Predominantly, but not exclusively, Black women.''

I stand in defense of Black women. I stand in defense of the Black women that he has called persons with low IQs. I defend Maxine Waters. I defend Vice President Kamala Harris. I defend Jasmine Crockett. I defend the women that this President would demean with a racist comment, and that is what it is. It is racist. Racist commentary constantly repeated over the airwaves.

It goes on to say: ``I think, in his mind''--this is a person speaking now of the President--``I think in his mind, because it doesn't explicitly refer to race, he feels that it is easy to deny that it's a racist label.''

My friends, he can deny it, but there are some of us who see through it. I am here to tell you that it is racist, and it is a racist label.

This article concludes with this language: ``By repeating the phrase openly''--as is done on racist radio quite regularly. Remember, we are talking today about invidious discrimination emanating from the Presidency, and I chose this topic, emanating from the Presidency, because I wanted to talk about how it has permeated society. It starts there at the top with this President, and it permeates society.

Now, the argument can be made that it was here, and it was, before this President took office, but he has popularized it. He has normalized it. He has made it such that people in racist radio use it regularly and feel as though they are doing something noble by demeaning people of color and women and others as well, members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

He says: ``I think in his mind, because he doesn't explicitly refer to race, he feels that it's easy to deny that it is a racist label.''

The final comment: ``By repeating the phrase openly, the practice further popularizes the concept.'' By repeating it, he popularizes the racist comment.

As another person who spoke--Harris--once put it, ``Trump's language seems to have become less a dog whistle and more a bullhorn.'' ``Less a dog whistle, more a bullhorn.''

So, friends, here we are. We have a President of the United States of America who routinely uses racist commentary to refer to people of color. Routinely. He does it without a thought as to how it impacts the lives of the people he refers to, the persons that he is calling low IQ. He doesn't really understand--maybe he does understand and doesn't care, but he should consider how it impacts the lives of people, how it signals to other people that the persons are less than, and how it can cause some people to respond to them in a very adverse way.

However, we have to say to the President--and I do so today--Mr. President, if you are using this kind of commentary, as you do, and you continue to do it routinely, someone has to tell you what you are doing.

Here is what you are doing, Mr. President: You are bringing the country itself, the country itself to a level of concern for others such that we are not seen as we were once seen--as we were once seen as a country with the Statue of Liberty, the notion that there is liberty and justice for all in our Pledge of Allegiance, the notion that we truly respect all people, and that all persons are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You are causing people across the globe to see us differently. You are causing people across the globe to understand that the United States is undergoing something that they never thought they would see and, quite frankly, I am amazed myself.

Therefore, Mr. President, there is only one thing I can say to you: When you do this, you are not only using a racist dog whistle, you are a racist. That kind of terminology utilized the way you do it regularly makes you the racist who has now given other racists the license to say what they say openly and notoriously, normalizing racism.

As we approach the 250th anniversary, Mr. President, you should be ashamed. However, there is no shame in you. You have already demonstrated this with your behavior over the many years that you have had a public voice.

You have already demonstrated there is no shame in you, so because you have no shame in you, Mr. President, I would call to your attention that while I am unbought, unbossed, unafraid, and unelected, censured but not silenced, Mr. President, there is still a countdown to impeachment. Mr. President, it is just a matter of time. Your day of reckoning will come.

Someone is going to stand in the well of this House of Representatives and is going to introduce Articles of Impeachment against you. These articles are going to pass in this House of Representatives, but before that person does it, however, I believe that there will be someone who will introduce articles to lay the foundation for the actual articles that will later on pass the House of Representatives.

There is always someone who lays the foundation for things. A foundation was made at the Edmund Pettus Bridge for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A foundation was laid to eliminate invidious discrimination in bussing on bus lines when Rosa Parks took a seat and ignited the sparked that started the civil rights movement.

Someone is going to lay the foundation.

Mr. President, you should know you will be impeached again. You will be three times impeached.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, I, Al Green, a proud, unbought, unbossed, unafraid, unelected, and truly liberated Democrat, yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source