How Trump's Epstein woes nearly derailed his spending cuts
Congress passed a rescissions package early Friday. The package formally withdraws funding for foreign aid, as well as for public television and radio stations. But debate stretched into the night on Thursday, as unrest over the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case continued to roil the GOP.
While the bill passed along largely partisan lines, the saga illustrates the heat some Republicans are facing after the recent Justice Department decision to withhold the 'Epstein files' from the public. Host Colby Itkowitz speaks with Post congressional reporters Liz Goodwin and Marianna Sotomayor about the controversy over the rescissions package and why the Epstein scandal remains a sticking point for lawmakers.
Today's show was produced by Arjun Singh. It was edited by Laura Benshoff and mixed by Sean Carter.
Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tucker Carlson Spits Out 2-Word Response To Trump's Claim That He Called The President To Apologize
Tucker Carlson is disputing Donald Trump's claim that he apologized for accusing the president of being 'complicit' in Israel's military attacks on Iran last month. Just days after the former Fox News host made the comments in a June 13 newsletter posted on his website, the POTUS alleged to reporters in the Oval Office that the conservative pundit reached out to him to bury the hatchet. 'He called and apologized the other day because he thought he had said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciate that,' Trump said on June 18. Trump also referred to Carlson as 'kooky' in a pointed June 16 post on his social platform Truth Social. 'Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!'' he wrote. In a new interview with German newspaper Bild, Carlson denied that the call ever took place. After the outlet's editor-in-chief, Paul Ronzheimer, asked Carlson if Trump's claims about the phone call were true, he replied, 'Okay... no.' 'No? It's not true?' Ronzheimer questioned again. 'No, I will say this … I don't care. I really like Trump. I campaigned for Trump. I just, to say it again, I agree with Trump, I have agreed with Trump on the issues,' Carlson said in the interview released Sunday. The political commentator went on to say that despite Trump's statement about the call not being factual, he would be 'happy to apologize' to the president. 'I'd be happy … I am the first to apologize because I am most mindful of my limits, and my own absurdities and the nonsense that I have spouted over the years,' Carlson said. 'Like, I don't think I'm God, and so I'm happy to apologize. And you can ask anyone who knows me, I'm an apologizer.' Ronzheimer then doubled down, asking Carlson, 'So you're apologizing now, publicly? Do I understand right?' Carlson responded: 'I don't know what I'd apologize for. I didn't attack Trump then. I disagreed with him … I don't think anything [was said] that would warrant an apology.' White House officials didn't immediately respond to HuffPost's requests for comment. The day after Carlson's newsletter published, Trump denied the U.S. had any involvement in Israel's attack on Iran in a June 13 post on Truth Social. 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,' Trump wrote. 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.' On June 21, U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites in a 'very successful attack,' Trump said in a televised Oval Office address. He added that Tehran's nuclear program had been wiped out. Watch Carlson's interview below. Related... Tucker Carlson Says These Companies Are Creating 'Race Hate' — And It's Not What You'd Expect Tucker Carlson Just Made A Shocking Claim About Fox News Tucker Carlson Unleashes Bizarre Theories On Why Pam Bondi Is Hiding Epstein List
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Washington D.C. mayor doesn't expect President Trump to block Commanders stadium deal after calling for name change
Even after President Donald Trump weighed in with multiple social media posts on Sunday threatening to block the deal, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser isn't worried about the Commanders' return to the city. Bowser, speaking Monday after Trump called for the Commanders to revert back to their old nickname that was widely seen as offensive, doesn't expect they'll have to worry about Trump or Congress intervening in the Commanders' new stadium deal. While the D.C. Council still needs to approve the deal officially, that could be done in a matter of weeks. 'I don't think that's an eventuality we have to plan for,' Bowser told ESPN of Trump blocking the deal. 'What we have to do as a city is do our part. And so our part is we've come up with a great deal, we have a great plan, we've done the community outreach, now is the time for the council to approve it.' Trump made multiple posts Sunday calling on both the Commanders and the Cleveland Guardians to revert back to their old team nicknames. The Commanders rebranded from the 'Washington Redskins' in 2020, and the Guardians retired their old 'Indians' moniker and the 'Chief Wahoo' logo ahead of the 2022 season. Both team names and the old Cleveland logo drew plenty of criticism in the years leading up to the change. The Commanders have not yet addressed Trump's posts, though new team owner Josh Harris has been clear that the team won't be going back to their old name. The Guardians shut the idea down on Sunday. Though he didn't get into specifics, Trump threatened to block the Commanders' new stadium deal if they didn't change their name. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted Monday that Trump's threat was real, though it's unclear what he could realistically do on that front. The Commanders announced plans earlier this year for a $3.7 billion deal to build a stadium on the old Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium site in Washington. The team is set to contribute $2.7 billion of that deal, and is looking for the rest to come from the city, along with retail shops, housing and more on the property. The goal is to open for the 2030 season. "Let me be clear, we're on the 1-yard line and it's time to get over the line," Bowser said, via ESPN. "I can't even imagine having to start all over on this. There's nobody waiting in the wings with $2.7 billion. And so this stadium is a catalyst and it will attract other investments. Any impediment to it getting done should be discouraged. 'When you're on the 1-yard line, you want to carry it over, right? That's all you want. No fumbles, no interceptions, let's just get it over the line. And that's what we're focused on." As for the stadium deal itself, Bowser insists that she thinks Trump knows it is a good one for everyone involved. 'This is what I believe,' she said. "I've had the opportunity to speak on a couple of different occasions with the President about this site and about our team. And I can say this without equivocation, he is a Jayden Daniels fan and he said himself and the presser we were at, that this is probably the best site of any site he's seen for a stadium. I have to think that that's what I've heard him say and that's what we'll stick with."
Axios
21 minutes ago
- Axios
"I hate it": Redistricting arms race gives lawmakers heartburn
House members are watching with growing discomfort as Democrats in California and other blue states consider joining Texas Republicans in pursuing mid-decade redistricting to gain an advantage in the 2026 midterms. Why it matters: It threatens, as one Democratic lawmaker put it, a "race to the bottom" that will encourage both sides to test the limits of gerrymandering and further fan the partisan flames engulfing the country. But with President Trump bearing down on Texas Republicans to change their maps and California Democrats wanting to respond in political self-defense, members of both parties feel they have little choice. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Axios of his state's possible redistricting: "How I feel is terribly conflicted. I hate it. I really worry about a race to the bottom on something that I consider pretty despicable." "But I understand why the governor and others are considering it. The only reason it would even be possible is what Texas and others are doing just stinks so badly that it's pissing people in California off." State of play: Texas Republicans began a special session Monday, which Gov. Greg Abbott said would include an attempt to redraw the state's U.S. House districts. Redistricting is normally only done after the decennial census — most recently in 2020 — or in response to a court order. However, Trump has put pressure on Republicans to undertake the unusual effort in the hopes of creating as many as five new GOP-leaning seats. Republicans in Ohio are also looking to redraw districts to try to unseat several Democrats. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has threatened to try to revisit his state's districts to create more Democratic-leaning seats. What we're hearing: Democrats may not stop at California, and are eyeing other blue states, including New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington, senior House Democrats told Axios. Democrats are "definitely looking into what's going on and trying to level the playing field," said one House Democrat. "It's crazy what's happening in Texas." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday: "It's all options on the table at this moment." Even though California has a constitutionally mandated independent redistricting commission, several House Democrats from the state told Axios they are confident Newsom could find a legal pathway. What they're saying: While lawmakers have largely stuck by their parties' plans as a necessary evil in an increasingly existential political environment, others expressed trepidation at the escalating brinksmanship. "We're only supposed to be redistricting every 10 years," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). "At some point, the partisanship gets too much. ... I just think it goes too far." A House Democrat from California, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Axios: "It's a difficult conversation, because we're literally doing it to gerrymander — everything that we stood against, and the reason we created the independent redistricting commission." "If we do it," the lawmaker added, "let's be very upfront and transparent about it. Don't leave it to an independent commission. Everybody knows what we're doing." Yes, but: Other relative moderates in both parties said they are more than comfortable with mid-decade redistricting, pointing to the other side's actions as justification. "It's not only Texas," Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), whose own seat could be threatened by the redistricting plan, said, noting Newsom's comments. Gonzales added that Trump is a "political genius" and that "if we can pull off squeezing five more seats out of Texas, that's a game changer." Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said if Republicans are "going to stoop to midterm redistricting to politically advantage the party, I think it's certainly something that should be on the table." The bottom line: Even Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), an arch-centrist who represents the reddest district of any House Democrat, declined to condemn potential redistricting in California — but he did warn Republicans against what is known as a dummymander.
