US House close to final vote on Trump tax bill
Almost 24 hours after debate began, Trump appeared close to major victory as Congress edged towards passing his "One Big Beautiful Bill," despite misgivings in his party over a text that would balloon the national debt while launching a historic assault on the social safety net.
Speaker Mike Johnson struggled through the night to corral his rank-and-file members after the package scraped through a series of "test" votes in the House of Representatives that laid bare deep divisions in the party.
It was on course for a final vote that would put it on Trump's desk to be signed into law after passing its last procedural hurdle in the early hours of Thursday.
"We feel very good about where we are and we're moving forward," an upbeat Johnson told reporters at the Capitol.
"So we're going to deliver the Big, Beautiful Bill -- the president's 'America First' agenda -- and we're going to do right by the American people."
- Trump's flagship bill -
The timetable could slip however as Democratic minority leader Hakeem Jeffries continued a long speech opposing the bill that delayed proceedings by several hours.
Originally approved by the House in May, Trump's sprawling legislation squeezed through the Senate on Tuesday but had to return to the lower chamber for a rubber stamp of the senators' revisions.
The package honors many of Trump's campaign promises, boosting military spending, funding a mass migrant deportation drive and committing $4.5 trillion to extend his first-term tax relief.
But it is expected to pile an extra $3.4 trillion over a decade onto the country's fast-growing deficits, while shrinking the federal food stamps program and forcing through the largest cuts to the Medicaid health insurance scheme for low-income Americans since its 1960s launch.
While moderates in the House are anxious that the cuts will damage their prospects of reelection, fiscal hawks chafed over savings that they say fall far short of what was promised.
Johnson has to negotiate tight margins, and can likely only lose three lawmakers in the final vote, among more than two dozen who had declared themselves open to rejecting Trump's bill.
- 'Abomination' -
The 869-page text only passed in the Senate after a flurry of tweaks that pulled the House-passed version further to the right.
It offsets its tax relief with around $1 trillion in health care cuts, and some estimates put the total number of recipients set to lose their insurance coverage under the bill at 17 million. Scores of rural hospitals are expected to close due to the cuts.
Most legislation in the House has to run the gauntlet of multiple preliminary votes before it can come up for final approval.
But there was alarm early on as the One Big Beautiful Bill stumbled at one of its first procedural stages, with a vote that ought to have been straightforward remaining open for seven hours and 31 minutes -- making it the longest in House history.
Johnson had been clear that he was banking on Trump leaning on waverers, as the president has in the past to turn around contentious House votes that were headed for failure.
The Republican leader has spent weeks hitting the phones and hosting White House meetings to cajole lawmakers torn between angering welfare recipients at home and incurring his wrath.
"FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE. RIDICULOUS!!!" Trump thundered in one of multiple posts to his Truth Social platform that sounded increasingly frustrated as Wednesday's marathon voting session spilled into Thursday.
House Democrats have signaled that they plan to campaign on the bill to flip the chamber in the 2026 midterm elections, pointing to analyses showing that it represents a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest.
Jeffries held the floor for his Democrats for more than three hours ahead of the final vote, as he told the stories of everyday Americans whom he argued would be harmed by Trump's legislation.
"This bill, this one big, ugly bill -- this reckless Republican budget, this disgusting abomination -- is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said.
By Frankie Taggart
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Can Trump's unpredictable diplomacy lead to lasting peace?
Of all the accusations President Trump may face, he surely deserves credit for effort, at least, to end conflicts, particularly the Ukraine war. Image: AFP US President Donald Trump attracts an avalanche of international scrutiny for all the right reasons — he is, after all, the commander-in-chief of the world's most potent army and presides over an economy with significant global influence. Washington's penchant for a cantankerous foreign policy that is replete with unpredictability is also an added reason to the long list of why the US matters the most in international relations. However, of all the accusations President Trump may face, he surely deserves credit for effort, at least, to end conflicts, particularly the Ukraine war. His surprise telephone call to his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, this week, reveals the side of the US President that confirms his unpredictable human nature. The one minute, he is bombing Iran under the guise of thwarting Tehran's nuclear programme. The very next minute, he unilaterally announces the pending resumption of talks between the US and Iran aimed at ending the simmering tensions and military confrontation. Typically, Trump seems to revel in leaving his friends and foes alike wondering what his next move will be. Like a hurricane, he leaves everyone scrambling for cover in his wake. In East Central Africa, President Trump has recently succeeded, almost out of the blue, to bring about a peace treaty between long-term neighbouring adversaries in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). According to the International Rescue Committee, from 1998-2007, an estimated 5.4 million people died as a result of conflict in the DRC, Africa's foremost producer of minerals and rare earths. Throughout many years until recently, Rwanda stood accused of providing military support to the notorious rebel group, the M23, that seeks to topple the DRC's democratically elected government. The African Union (AU) has been woefully unable to end the DRC conflict. The regional body, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), has attempted to halt the war through military intervention. However, the SADC army has been thoroughly overrun by the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group, causing a major continental embarrassment as purported peace-keeping soldiers were forced to cut and run with tails between their legs. It has thus taken great effort from the Trump administration to intervene, and successfully so, in bringing the warring sides to Washington a fortnight ago to put pen to paper, thereby creating a rare sense of normalcy to Africa's territory that has so far known only terror. Granted, Trump's endorsement and material support for the Israeli genocide against Gaza leave too much to be desired. With naked impunity and US diplomatic cover, Israel continues to extinguish helpless Palestinians on whose plight the world, except South Africa, has deliberately turned a blind eye. So far, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — aided by the US and EU — has killed nearly 60 000 Gazans since 2023. Nearly 20 000 of the victims are innocent children, including newborn babies in understaffed hospitals that the Western NGO's have elected to ignore. Methinks that if Trump never receives a Nobel Peace Prize, he so desperately aspires, Gaza will be the singular cause for that failure. But then again, nothing in life is ever 100% good or bad, at least in my book. Despite Trump's glaring litany of shortcomings, his unexpected nearly one-hour telephone call to President Putin, during which the elephant in the room was how to end the war in Ukraine, deserves merit. It happened during a time when some in Europe and Nato are desperately investing their time and resources in propaganda to peddle Russophobia, creating an atmosphere of foreboding fear about unsubstantiated claims of Moscow's dreaded secret intentions to conquer Europe one territory after the other. The Kremlin has consistently dismissed the war-mongering Western drums, dismissing the claims simply as ludicrous. During the Trump-Putin call, according to the Russian Presidential Aide, Yuri Ushakov, the discussions were cordial and meaningful and, above all, goal-oriented. Of greater importance, Trump raised 'the issue of an early end to hostilities in Ukraine'. In return, President Putin stressed that 'Russia continues to seek a negotiated solution to the Ukrainian conflict'. Although other issues were also discussed, the spirit of conviviality that characterised the discussion and their clear convergence of standpoints hint at the renewed path and hope that the road to a peace deal is getting clearer by the day. Finally, thanks to Trump, there is a thaw in bilateral relations between the two nuclear powers. Furthermore, the jovial discussions took place during a week in which Trump suspended the supply of US arms deliveries to Ukraine. This included a pause in the delivery of several critical munitions to Ukraine, including the patriot interceptors. Reports attributed the decision to Washington's concerns over dwindling US stockpiles. In my view, it matters less what the real reason could be. The move expedites the push toward the attainment of the much-needed truce in the Ukraine conflict. Too many lives have been lost, and unless there is a halt to the hostilities, and pretty soon, Ukraine could end up as one gigantic heap of rubble. The Trump administration's moves in global affairs, of course, affect every nation. But the greatest effects are inevitably felt across Europe, where Washington's traditional allies find themselves at the receiving end of devastating imposition of tariffs on various goods by the Trump administration. Additionally, at the level of Nato, the unity that until recently held the bloc together is rapidly disintegrating. Nato is no longer certain that, under Trump, the US still adheres to Article 5, which refers to 'an attack on one is an attack on all'. Instead, Trump has implored Europe to pull itself by the bootstraps and increase military expenditure to 5% of each country's GDP. This is a tall order. At the moment, many EU economies are reeling, and any expenditure on arms ahead of welfare, healthcare and social services is highly likely to trigger upheavals. This eventuality, the EU politicians are not prepared to face. Washington's push for peace in Ukraine has also forced Europe to rethink its aggressive propaganda against Russia, and instead, restart ways to seek a negotiated settlement. This week's out-of-the-blue call by the French President Emmanuel Macron to President Putin — the first in a long time — signalled Europe's acceptance that, without the US backing, the EU can no longer continue to threaten Russia with military force. Macron's call to his Russian counterpart follows the EU's years of demanding Russia's defeat, sending Scalp missiles, and spewing anti-Putin rhetoric. These latest moves, and a rare posture that cries out for peace talks, are a drastic change in the EU's foreign policy toward Moscow. The unprecedented barrage of economic sanctions that the EU had imposed on Moscow at the behest of the Biden administration has had a boomerang effect on Europe. It has caused EU economies to contract, such as Germany, and at the same time, the Russian economy flourished in spite of the sanctions. Europe's talk of going it alone if President Trump pushes for peace has dissipated very quickly. So has the talk of the so-called Coalition of the Willing led by the UK and France's Macron, aka 'Little Napoleon'. War talk, seemingly, has short legs. And now, as peace looms ever so large on the horizon, Moscow is insisting that the West address the fundamental causes of the Ukraine conflict, which is NATO's expansion eastward, especially to Russia's doorstep.
IOL News
7 hours ago
- IOL News
US Congress proposes sanctions against South Africa over Israel case
US President Donald Trump hands papers to President Cyril Ramaphosa during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Image: AFP A controversial bill introduced in the United States Congress aims to cut off direct aid to South Africa and impose targeted sanctions on its political leaders, citing the country's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and its growing diplomatic ties with Iran and Hamas. Republican Representative Greg Steube on Friday tabled the Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025 in the US House of Representatives. The proposed legislation accuses the South African government of using international institutions to wage 'lawfare' against Israel, advancing what it calls an 'antisemitic narrative under the guise of international law'. 'It is clear as day that the Government of South Africa is unfairly targeting the State of Israel and inciting hostility towards the United States and our allies,' Steube said in a statement dated June 17. 'America has no business engaging with a corrupt government that weaponises its political system against the Jewish people while jeopardising our national security interests by indulging terrorist organisations and their sponsors.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Steube said the bill is a direct response to South Africa's 'genocide' case against Israel at the ICJ, its hosting of Hamas delegations following the October 7 attacks, and the signing of an economic cooperation deal with Iran involving oil refinery projects. Under the bill, the US would suspend all direct assistance to South Africa, excluding humanitarian and public health aid, unless the government ceases all formal support for international legal actions 'that unfairly target the State of Israel', implements institutional reforms to combat corruption, and improves diplomatic cooperation with the United States. It also authorises the US president to impose sanctions, under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on any South African official deemed to have promoted antisemitic policies or misused international courts to attack Israel. Political analyst Siseko Maposa, director at Surgetower Associates, said while the bill's passage is uncertain, its symbolic and diplomatic weight should not be underestimated. 'This bill exemplifies President Trump and the Republican faction's continued efforts to punish South Africa for its principled positions on international justice – particularly regarding Israel,' said Maposa. 'What distinguishes this initiative from prior attempts, however, is its heavy enforcement mechanisms, which would inflict tangible consequences for South Africa if enacted.' He noted that from 2012 to 2021, South Africa received an estimated $6 billion in direct US foreign direct investment, and a significant portion of development assistance has flowed through US government and affiliated aid programmes. 'While passage remains uncertain, a narrow legislative pathway exists. Republicans hold a slim majority in both chambers, but recent infighting, such as the collapse of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' vote, shows that internal dissent could derail it. South Africa's best chance may lie in lobbying moderate Republicans to oppose this draconian overreach,' he said. Maposa also warned that the bill could face legal challenges in the US if its conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is seen as infringing on constitutional free speech protections. At the time of publication, the South African government had not issued a formal response. However, senior ANC leaders have previously defended the country's application to the ICJ as a legal obligation under the Genocide Convention, following Israel's military campaign in Gaza that has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread humanitarian destruction. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and last year described the ICJ case as a stand for 'international justice and accountability'. Steube's bill frames these actions differently, alleging that South Africa has 'repeatedly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas and Iran against Israel and the United States,' while 'aligning itself with authoritarian regimes hostile to United States national interests'. The bill further accuses the ANC of giving legitimacy to terrorist actors, pointing to its meetings with Hamas officials and Tehran's diplomatic engagement with Pretoria. The Democratic Alliance, the country's main opposition party, is expected to weigh in on the diplomatic fallout. The DA has previously criticised the ANC government's foreign policy as isolating South Africa from key Western partners. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation will likely be called on to explain whether any formal communication has been received from US officials regarding the bill and what diplomatic channels, if any, are being pursued to address it. Should the bill pass, it could result in South African officials being barred from travelling to the US or having assets frozen under US jurisdiction. It could also signal further deteriorating relations between the two countries, which have clashed in recent years over BRICS alignment, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and military cooperation exercises with China. For now, Pretoria's best hope appears to rest on political divisions within the US Republican Party. Maposa said: 'This internal Republican division may be its sole reprieve – one Pretoria must seize by urgently lobbying moderate Republican legislators to oppose the bill outright.' Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) was best suited to respond to the bill. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation confirmed that it is monitoring the proposed legislation through diplomatic channels. Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: 'As you may know, an act or bill is proposed and passed by a country's legislative body, such as the Parliament in South Africa or the Congress and Senate in the USA. These bodies operate within their sovereign territories, and their primary function is to create or implement policy through legislation, typically without the need for consultation with other nations. We recognise that this principle underscores the autonomy of states in their legislative processes. Legislative processes by their nature are publicly accessible, as such our Embassy in Washington D.C. will be able to monitor relevant developments.' On political lobbying within the US, Phiri said: 'We have noted the information regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial contributions to American politicians. We understand that AIPAC openly ties its contributions to candidates' support for the US-Israel relationship, thereby creating a significant incentive for politicians to align with this stance. There is public information indicating that some House Representatives who have introduced bills may fall within this category of politicians.' Phiri added that South Africa's foreign policy remains non-aligned. 'Minister Lamola consistently asserts that South Africa's foreign policy is independent and non-aligned, rooted in its constitutional principles and national interests, rather than hostility towards any nation.' Regarding Iran, he said: 'South Africa upholds its dedication to international initiatives to curtail the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and supports the right to develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. South Africa's engagement with Iran is consistent with its broader foreign policy of engaging with all countries.' He said South Africa's approach to foreign policy was based on constitutional values and international legal principles. 'We reemphasise that our foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism, multilateralism, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of a just and equitable world order. These are universal values, not ideological preferences. Our non-aligned stance enables us to pursue an independent foreign policy that serves our national interests and contributes to global peace and stability. This means engaging with all countries, regardless of their geopolitical alignment.' Phiri added: 'We wish to reiterate that South Africa's genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice is fundamentally driven by our commitment to upholding a rules-based international order anchored in international law, with the aim of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that all actors, including powerful states, are bound by these principles. It is not, as you suggest, driven by ideological alignment, but by a consistent pursuit of justice and the reinforcement of international legal frameworks.' Attempts to get comments from the ANC and the DA were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
TimesLIVE
7 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Kanye West barred from Australia over antisemitic song praising Hitler
American rapper Kanye West has been denied entry into Australia after the release of a controversial track in which he praises Adolf Hitler. The decision was announced by Australia's minister of home affairs Tony Burke who cited concerns about promoting bigotry. West, 47, released the song Heil Hitler on May 8 as part of his new album WW3. The track was widely condemned for glorifying Nazism and antiSemitic messaging, prompting several streaming platforms to remove it. The release date was especially provocative, as it coincided with V-E Day, the 80th anniversary of the end of World War 2 in Europe. Speaking to ABC, Burke confirmed West's visa had been cancelled after a review by immigration officials. 'He's been coming to Australia for a long time. He's got family here and he's made a lot of offensive comments my officials looked at again,' said Burke. 'I'm not taking away the way the act operates, but even for the lowest level of visa, when my officials looked at it, they cancelled that after the announcement of that song. We have enough problems in this country without importing bigotry.' The Heil Hitler track contains disturbing lyrics in which West references personal grievances, including custody battles and financial restrictions, rapping: 'These people took my kids from me and they froze my bank account.' The song ends with a sample of a 1935 speech by Hitler. Adding to the controversy, West posted a video on X featuring a group of shirtless black men draped in animal skins professing their love for Hitler, fuelling outrage online. West has been embroiled in a long-standing custody dispute with his ex-wife, reality star Kim Kardashian. The pair who finalised their divorce in 2022 share four children: North West, 11, Saint, 9, Chicago West, 7. and Psalm West,m 5. Despite agreeing to joint custody, West has publicly claimed he has limited access to his children. Adding a personal dimension to the travel ban is that Kanye is now married to Australian-born architect and designer Bianca Censori who was raised in Melbourne and has frequently travelled with West during his international visits. Neither Kardashian nor the Kardashian-Jenner family have commented on the latest controversy. As this adds another chapter in his increasingly turbulent career, global backlash continues to grow over his recent actions and statements.
