Trump signs tax and spending cut bill at White House July 4 picnic
Against odds that at times seemed improbable, Mr Trump achieved his goal of celebrating a historic and divisive legislative victory in time for the nation's birthday.
Fighter jets and a stealth bomber streaked through the sky over the annual White House Fourth of July picnic as Mr Trump and first lady Melania Trump stepped out onto the White House balcony.
'America's winning, winning, winning like never before,' Mr Trump said, noting last month's bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear programme, which he said the flyover was meant to honour.
'Promises made, promises kept and we've kept them.'
The White House was hung with red, white and blue bunting for the regular Fourth of July festivities.
The United States Marine Band played patriotic marches — and, in a typical Trumpian touch, tunes by 1980s pop icons Chaka Khan and Huey Lewis.
The two separate flyovers bookended Mr Trump's appearance and the band playing the national anthem.
Democrats assailed the package as a giveaway to the rich that will rob millions more lower-income people of their health insurance, food assistance and financial stability.
'I never thought that I'd be on the House floor saying that this is a crime scene,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said during a record-breaking speech that delayed the bill's passage by eight-plus hours.
'It's a crime scene, going after the health, and the safety, and the well-being of the American people.'
The legislation extends Mr Trump's 2017 multitrillion-dollar tax cuts and cuts Medicaid and food stamps by 1.2 trillion dollars. It provides for a massive increase in immigration enforcement.
Congress' non-partisan scorekeeper projects that nearly 12 million more people will lose health insurance under the law.
The legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote on Thursday.
It passed by a single vote in the Senate, where North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis announced he would not run for re-election after incurring Mr Trump's wrath in opposing it.
Vice president JD Vance had to cast the tie-breaking vote.
The legislation amounts to a repudiation of the agendas of the past two Democratic presidents, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, in rolling back Mr Obama's Medicaid expansion under his signature health law and Mr Biden's tax credits for renewable energy.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will add 3.3 trillion dollars to the deficit over the decade and 11.8 million more people will go without health coverage.
Mr Trump exulted in his political victory on Thursday night in Iowa, where he attended a kick-off of events celebrating the country's 250th birthday next year.
'I want to thank Republican congressmen and women, because what they did is incredible,' he said.
The president complained that Democrats voted against the bill because 'they hate Trump — but I hate them, too'.
The package is certain to be a flashpoint in next year's mid-term elections, and Democrats are making ambitious plans for rallies, voter registration drives, attack ads, bus tours and even a multi-day vigil, all intended to highlight the most controversial elements.
Upon his return to Washington early Friday, Mr Trump described the package as 'very popular' though polling suggests that public opinion is mixed at best.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
30 minutes ago
- ITV News
Hamas says it has given 'positive' response to Gaza ceasefire proposal
Hamas has said it has given a "positive" response to the latest proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza – which one official said could start as early as next week. It is not clear if the militant group's statement late on Friday means it has accepted a proposal from US President Donald Trump for a 60-day ceasefire. Hamas said it would be holding discussions with leaders and other Palestinian groups about ceasefire proposals, which will be presented to Egyptian and Qatari mediators. The group said it would give its final response once talks have ended. Trump said on Tuesday that Israel had agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, during which the US would "work with all parties to end the war.' He urged Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen. In a statement late on Friday, Hamas said it 'has submitted its positive response' to Egyptian and Qatari said it is 'fully prepared to immediately enter into a round of negotiations regarding the mechanism for implementing this framework.' It did not elaborate on what needed to be worked out in implementation. A Hamas official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorised to discuss the response with the press, said the ceasefire could start as early as next week. However, he said talks were needed first to work out how many Palestinian prisoners would be released in return for each freed Israeli hostage and to specify the amount of aid that will enter Gaza during the truce. Hamas has said it wants aid to flow in greater quantities through the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies. The official also said that negotiations would start from the first day of the truce on a permanent ceasefire and full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza in return for the release of remaining hostages. He said that Trump has guaranteed that the truce will be extended beyond 60 days if needed for those negotiations to reach a deal. There has been no confirmation from the United States of such a guarantee. Previous rounds of negotiations have run aground over Hamas demands of guarantees that further negotiations would lead to the war's end, while Netanyahu has insisted Israel would resume fighting to ensure the destruction of the militant group.'We'll see what happens. We're going to know over the next 24 hours,' Trump told reporters on Air Force One late Thursday when asked if Hamas had agreed to the latest framework for a ceasefire. Hamas's statement came as Israeli airstrikes killed 15 Palestinians in Gaza early on Friday, while a hospital said another 20 people died in shootings while seeking UN human rights office said it has recorded 613 Palestinians killed within the span of a month in Gaza while trying to obtain aid. Most were killed while trying to reach food distribution points run by Israeli-backed American organisation the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), while others waited for aid trucks connected to the United Nations or other humanitarian groups, it said. Since GHF began distributions in late May, witnesses have said almost daily that Israeli troops open fire toward crowds of Palestinians on the roads leading to the food centres. To reach the sites, people must walk several miles through an Israeli military zone where troops control the Israeli military has said previously it fires warning shots to control crowds or at Palestinians who approach its troops. The GHF has denied any serious injuries or deaths on its sites and says shootings outside their immediate vicinity are under the purview of Israel's Friday, in reaction to the UN rights agency's report, it said in a statement that it was investigating reports of people killed and wounded while seeking aid. It said it was working at 'minimising possible friction between the population' and Israeli forces, including by installing fences and placing signs on the witnesses have said Israeli troops open fire toward crowds of Palestinians who gather in military-controlled zones to wait for aid trucks entering Gaza for the UN or other aid organizations not associated with Friday, 17 people were killed waiting for trucks in eastern Khan Younis in the Tahliya area, officials at Nasser Hospital survivors told the Associated Press they had gone to wait for the trucks in a military 'red zone' in Khan Younis and that troops opened fire from a tank and drones. It was a 'crowd of people, may God help them, who want to eat and live,' said Seddiq Abu Farhana, who was shot in the leg, forcing him to drop a bag of flour he had grabbed. 'There was direct firing.' UN human rights office spokeswoman, Ravina Shamdasani, said the agency was not able to attribute responsibility for the killings. But she said 'it is clear that the Israeli military has shelled and shot at Palestinians trying to reach the distribution points' operated by Shamdasani said that of the total tallied, 509 killings were 'GHF-related,' meaning at or near its distribution a statement on Friday, the GHF cast doubt on the casualty figures, accusing the UN of taking its casualty figures 'directly from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry' and of trying 'to falsely smear our effort.'Ms Shamdasani said that the data "is based on our own information gathering through various reliable sources, including medical, human rights and humanitarian organisations". World Health Organisation representative Rik Peeperkorn said Nasser Hospital, the biggest hospital operating in the south of Gaza, receives dozens or hundreds of casualties every day, most coming from the vicinity of the food distribution sites. The International Committee of the Red Cross also said in late June that its field hospital near one of the GHF sites has been overwhelmed more than 20 times in the previous months by mass casualties, most suffering gunshot injuries while on their way to the food distribution Health Ministry in Gaza said the number of Palestinians killed in the territory has passed 57,000. The war began when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking roughly 250 hostages. The ministry does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count, but says more than half of the dead are women and children. The ministry is run by medical professionals employed by the Hamas government, and its numbers are widely cited by the UN and international organisations.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Here we go again: latest Trump tariff deadline looms amid inflation concerns
When Donald Trump unveiled his 'liberation day' tariffs in the spring, only to pull the plug days later as panic tore through global markets, his officials scrambled to present the climbdown as temporary. Three months of frenetic talks would enable the Trump administration to strike dozens of trade agreements with countries across the world, they claimed. 'We're going to run,' the White House trade adviser Peter Navarro told Fox Business Network. 'Ninety deals in 90 days is possible.' The 90-day pause Trump ordered on his steep tariffs is almost up, and 90 deals have not materialized. The US is again on the brink of launching a trade assault against dozens of countries, with rates including 27% on Kazakhstan, 47% on Madagascar and 36% on Thailand. 'I'm not thinking about the pause,' the president claimed during a briefing with reporters earlier this week, when asked about Wednesday's deadline. 'I'll be writing letters to a lot of countries. And I think you're just starting to understand the process.' Business leaders, lobbyists, economists and investors might disagree. Even officials in Trump's own administration have at times struggled to keep up. Another cliff edge has reared into view, forcing them to return to a familiar question: will he actually go through with this? 'I would suspect he's serious,' said Marc Busch, professor of international business diplomacy at Georgetown University. 'I think he's going to give a pass to the countries negotiating in good faith. But as of 9 July, a lot of the news will be big tariffs that the US hasn't seen since the 1930s are in effect.' A handful of agreements have emerged, cooling some tensions. A partial deal with the UK was first to emerge, before a delicate truce with China, and a pact with Vietnam. Officials are also said to be closing in on a 'framework' arrangement with the EU. But these breakthroughs have been significantly narrower than conventional free trade agreements, which can take years to hammer out. 'These aren't real trade deals. These are cessations of hostility,' said Busch. 'These are purchasing agreements that may or may not appease Trump for maybe a little while, thrown in with some aspirational stuff.' Even if Trump extends the 90-day pause next week, or strikes myriad deals at breakneck pace, current tariff levels are still much higher than they were before his return to office. The effects of this are still filtering through to prices for US consumers. 'The US economy is definitely, I would say, breaking more to the positive than would have been the narrative, or the expectation, kind of right after liberation day,' said John Waldron, president of Goldman Sachs. 'There's still an expectation that we're going to see more inflation over the course of the summer.' Mid-sized businesses in the US face an estimated $82.3bn in additional costs if the US maintains a 10% universal rate on all imports, as well as higher rates of 55% on China and 25% on Mexico and Canada, according to analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute. Such firms 'often play a crucial role in regional economies and as part of larger supply chains', said analysts at the institute. 'If they struggle, it may cause ripple effects for other businesses and their communities.' If the 'liberation day' tariffs are reimposed after the pause, costs would rise significantly. But even if they are not, the duties Trump has already introduced – and remain in force – are leaving companies with a hefty bill. The administration's playbook, of hiking tariffs on a country dramatically and then cutting them back as a result of an agreement, is 'like a retailer that one day increases prices by 100% and another day announces a 30% sale', said Busch. 'It's quite extraordinary that we're still debating this issue,' he added. 'American businesses are already eating and passing on parts of these tariffs to consumers.' No senior federal official has been more vocal about this reality than Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, who – despite Trump's public demands and attacks – has kept US interest rates on hold while waiting to see how the administration's trade strategy pans out. 'Someone has to pay for the tariffs,' Powell said at a recent press conference, noting how the cost filters through a supply chain, from the initial manufacturer through to the customer buying a product. 'All through that chain, people will be trying not to be the ones who pick up the cost. 'But ultimately, the cost of the tariff has to be paid and some of it will fall on the end consumer. We know that. That's what businesses say. That's what the data says from past evidence. So we know that's coming.' Trump does not see it this way, insisting that tariffs are taxes on other countries, rather than US businesses and consumers. Whatever happens over the next few days, those attempting to take a longer-term view believe the main actions he has taken in recent months – like imposing blanket 10% tariffs – could remain in place for many years to come. 'We think it's likely that high and broad-based tariffs are here to stay because, of all the purported goals of trade policy, they're proving most successful at raising revenue,' said Michael Pearce, deputy chief US economist at Oxford Economics. 'Given the fiscal challenges that lie ahead, those revenues will be hard for future administrations to replace.'
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Why we will all share in the Chancellor's tears
Rather, I feel drawn to the aftermath. The forced smile, the reassurance aimed at markets. That plus the concession that there is a cost associated with the Commons retreat – 'and that will be reflected in the budget'. Read More: A throwaway phrase – but one rich with intent. In the autumn we will all witness spending curbs – or tax increases. Or both. As a consequence of this week's events. But first those tears. We should all extend sympathy to a fellow being in evident distress. Mostly, the House would assuredly do that, within limits. In the Commons, there is a commonality of feeling which straddles partisan division. There are more connections and friendships across the aisles than would be thought from the bogus sound and fury of what passes for Parliamentary discourse. The role of MP can be a relatively lonely one. A tribune of the people, yet subject to the whims and discontent of the electorate. The only ones who truly understand the stresses and strains of the job are other MPs. Hence the fellow feeling. And those limits? On the subject of the Chancellor's discomfiture, I chanced to be on the wireless broadcasting to an astonished nation alongside Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP. Christine Jardine (Image: PA) She said that she had witnessed the tears – and had felt like crossing the chamber to offer a comforting hug to Rachel Reeves. However, she stayed in her place. Aware, she said, that protocol in the Commons would frown upon such a fracture of party lines. I am sure that is right. There are no rules, as such, governing such matters. However, being the Commons, there is accumulated custom and practice. Which solemnly suggests that opposing parties should stay two sword lengths apart. But what of the Chancellor's own side? Should they not have offered more assistance? How about the Prime Minister? He explained later that he had not noticed his chum's distress. Prime Minister's Questions, he averred, is 'pretty wired' – and he was focused on coping with that. Even accepting that, his response was limp. He was explicitly challenged by the Leader of the Opposition to defend the Chancellor. His answer was to list the collective successes of the government, noting that Ms Reeves had led on each and concluding: 'We are grateful to her for it.' Read More: Was that it? The best he could do? 'Grateful to her' sounds like the sort of phrase accompanied by a carriage clock and a gentle shove out the door. But no. Sir Keir plainly realised he had fallen short, albeit inadvertently. In subsequent comments, including at a shared appearance, he went out of his way to stress that she was a star who would light up 11 Downing Street for many years to come. Which was apparently designed to placate the markets. Sensible folk, dealing with the trials of everyday life, might well advise flaky traders to get real and avoid being spooked so readily. But, still, I understand. These are deeply troubled times, the age of anxiety. The markets required reassurance not so much about an individual as about the firm fiscal rules that the incumbent Chancellor has promised to observe. To avoid the problem, should the Chancellor have stayed away from the Commons, aware that she was upset? But that would only have prompted questions about her absence. As she said herself, her place is by the PM's side. Especially when the government's entire fiscal strategy is under strain. The cuts to disability benefits were designed to save £5bn by the end of the current term. That £5bn had been factored into Treasury sums – and must now be found elsewhere. This cannot be resolved by a day-late smile from the Chancellor and a comforting hug from the PM. This is deeply, deeply challenging. Plus there is another factor. The Commons may assist a member in evident distress. But the House also develops a collective, Darwinian momentum of its own when it detects weakness. On the government benches, the Prime Minister and Chancellor are now palpably weakened. Not by a few stifled tears or the PM's innocent neglect. But by the complete, chaotic collapse of a core policy, that of curbing disability benefits. Yes, it will be said that reform has survived to some degree. That the objective of encouraging disabled people into work remains. But the Labour back benches have risen and rejected the cuts to welfare benefits. They have said no, firmly, to the PM and the Chancellor. It is all too easy for such rebellion to become habitual. For the discontent to extend to any proposed spending cuts. Or to tax hikes, if they strain credulity. As I also noted on the wireless, the problem for the PM is that the entire approach to cutting disability benefits ran contrary to Labour instincts – which he appeared either to lack or to disregard. Further, the Chancellor had already made herself unpopular with the troops by the assertive stand she took on the winter fuel payment. Yes, I understand, she was, once more, playing to those powerful markets. For a Labour Minister, it was a deliberately counter-intuitive attempt to stress her determination to curb the spending package, to stand firm. But it left Labour backbenchers unhappy and sullen. The welfare reforms, on top of that, proved to be a step too far. Way too far. It will now be decidedly difficult for the PM and Chancellor to retrench. To regain the solid support of their MPs while clutching the grail of market confidence. Difficult but not impossible. Political tears are generally reserved for moments of high emotion – or departure. Moments of turmoil. Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence to the Covid inquiry. Vaughan Gething fearing an upcoming confidence motion as Welsh FM – which he duly lost. Weep no more. Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves now need to project certainty and smiling reassurance. If they can. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre – and Dundee United FC
