Top Democrats demand apology from Florida Republican over attack on Ilhan Omar
It's dangerously close to the July 18 deadline that will render Trump's rescissions package expired for good if Congress doesn't act. But Senate Republicans are seeking tweaks to minimize the bill's cuts to AIDS prevention efforts around the world and valued local broadcasters back home.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune can lose no more than three GOP senators if he wants to get the White House request across the finish line. According to him, it's still TBD what the bill will look like when and if it gets through the chamber.
'We'll see where it goes,' Thune told reporters Tuesday, adding that he doesn't have a hard vote count yet. Thune is assuming Republicans will at least be able to gather the necessary 51 votes to begin debate on the package while leaders continue to whip support.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) is among the Republicans seeking to amend the package, but she refused to elaborate on how much of the $9.4 billion she is aiming to protect: 'I have already made clear I don't support the cuts to PEPFAR and child and maternal health,' Collins said Tuesday night.
Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) on Tuesday both said they want amendments to protect public radio stations for Native American reservations and rural Alaskans, respectively.
'Whatever form it takes, we can't lose these small-town radio stations across the country that are literally the only way to get out an emergency message,' Rounds told reporters.
Complicating efforts to change the package: Any amendment would have to be narrowly tailored to comply with germaneness rules. The parliamentarian is involved, guiding senators on what tweaks will be allowed.
Should the parliamentarian allow changes, Collins & Co. might find support from other Republicans. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas said he's keeping his options open until he sees what the chamber's rulekeeper will allow. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said he currently 'lean[s] yes' on the package but said some Republicans have made persuasive arguments in favor of protecting PEPFAR.
Other Republicans can't understand their colleagues' objections.
'After all the tough talk by Republicans in the Senate about the need to reduce spending, if we can't agree to reduce $9 billion worth of spending porn, then we all ought to go buy paper bags and put them over our heads,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday.
What else we're watching:
Russia sanctions pending: Expect developments later this week from Thune on when the chamber could take up a bipartisan bill to impose new sanctions on Russia. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters the president is on board with a punishing new package as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to resist peace talks in Ukraine.
Biden doc to testify: Kevin O'Connor, who served as former President Joe Biden's physician, is testifying before the House Oversight Committee Wednesday as part of its probe into Biden's mental acuity while in office. The Trump White House waived executive privilege for O'Connor ahead of his interview, meaning he won't be able to invoke that reason to avoid answering questions.
New megabill talks heat up: Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) joined House GOP leaders in saying that he wants a second reconciliation bill this fall. He believes policies were left on the table from the first package, although declined to disclose specifics. House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said he believes GOP leaders should try to revive provisions cut from the first megabill due to the Byrd rule.
Jordain Carney, Jennifer Scholtes and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
20 minutes ago
DOGE sprouts in red states, as governors embrace the cost-cutter brand and make it their own
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The brash and chaotic first days of President Donald Trump 's Department of Government Efficiency, once led by the world's richest man Elon Musk, spawned state-level DOGE mimicry as Republican governors and lawmakers aim to show they are in step with their party's leader. Governors have always made political hay out of slashing waste or taming bureaucracy, but DOGE has, in some ways, raised the stakes for them to show that they are zealously committed to cutting costs. Many drive home the point that they have always been focused on cutting government, even if they're not conducting mass layoffs. 'I like to say we were doing DOGE before DOGE was a thing,' Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said in announcing her own task force in January. Critics agree that some of these initiatives are nothing new and suggest they are wasteful, essentially duplicating built-in processes that are normally the domain of legislative committees or independent state auditors. At the same time, some governors are using their DOGE vehicles to take aim at GOP targets of the moment, such as welfare programs or diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And some governors who might be eyeing a White House run in 2028 are rebranding their cost-cutting initiatives as DOGE, perhaps eager to claim the mantle of the most DOGE of them all. At least 26 states have initiated DOGE-style efforts of varying kinds, according to the Economic Policy Institute based in Washington, D.C. Most DOGE efforts were carried out through a governor's order — including by governors in Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire and Oklahoma — or by lawmakers introducing legislation or creating a legislative committee. The state initiatives have a markedly different character than Trump's slash-and-burn approach, symbolized by Musk's chainsaw-brandishing appearance at a Conservative Political Action Committee appearance in February. Governors are tending to entrust their DOGE bureaus to loyalists, rather than independent auditors, and are often employing what could be yearslong processes to consolidate procurement, modernize information technology systems, introduce AI tools, repeal regulations or reduce car fleets, office leases or worker headcounts through attrition. Steve Slivinski, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who researches state government regulatory structures, said that a lot of what he has seen from state-level DOGE initiatives are the 'same stuff you do on a pretty regular basis anyway' in state governments. States typically have routine auditing procedures and the ways states have of saving money are 'relatively unsexy," Slivinski said. And while the state-level DOGE vehicles might be useful over time in finding marginal improvements, "branding it DOGE is more of a press op rather than anything new or substantially different than what they usually do,' Slivinski said. Analysts at the pro-labor Economic Policy Institute say that governors and lawmakers, primarily in the South and Midwest, are using DOGE to breathe new life into long-term agendas to consolidate power away from state agencies and civil servants, dismantle public services and benefit insiders and privatization advocates. 'It's not actually about cutting costs because of some fiscal responsibility,' EPI analyst Nina Mast said. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry rebranded his 'Fiscal Responsibility Program' as Louisiana DOGE, and promoted it as the first to team up with the federal government to scrub illegitimate enrollees from welfare programs. It has already netted $70 million in savings in the Medicaid program in an 'unprecedented' coordination, Landry said in June. In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt — who says in a blurb on the Oklahoma DOGE website that 'I've been DOGE-ing in Oklahoma since before it was cool" — made a DOGE splash with the first report by his Division of Government Efficiency by declaring that the state would refuse some $157 million in federal public health grants. The biggest chunk of that was $132 million intended to support epidemiology and laboratory capacity to control infectious disease outbreaks. The Stitt administration said that funding — about one-third of the total over an eight-year period — exceeded the amount needed. The left-leaning Oklahoma Policy Institute questioned the wisdom of that, pointing to rising numbers of measles and whooping cough cases and the rocky transition under Stitt of the state's public health lab from Oklahoma City to Stillwater. Oklahoma Democrats issued rebukes, citing Oklahoma's lousy public health rankings. 'This isn't leadership,' state Sen. Carri Hicks said. 'It's negligence." Stitt's Oklahoma DOGE has otherwise recommended changes in federal law to save money, opened up the suggestion box to state employees and members of the general public and posted a spreadsheet online with cost savings initiatives in his administration. Those include things as mundane as agencies going paperless, refinancing bonds, buying automated lawn mowers for the Capitol grounds or eliminating a fax machine line in the State Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Surveyors. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an executive order in February creating a task force of DOGE teams in each state agency. In the order, DeSantis recited 10 points on what he described as his and Florida's 'history of prudent fiscal management' even before DOGE. Among other things, DeSantis vowed to scrutinize spending by state universities and municipal and county governments — including on DEI initiatives — at a time when DeSantis is pushing to abolish the property taxes that predominantly fund local governments. His administration has since issued letters to universities and governments requesting reams of information and received a blessing from lawmakers, who passed legislation authorizing the inquiry and imposing fines for entities that don't respond. After the June 30 signing ceremony, DeSantis declared on social media: 'We now have full authority to DOGE local governments.' In Arkansas, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders launched her cost-cutting Arkansas Forward last year, before DOGE, and later said the state had done the 'same thing' as DOGE. Her administration spent much of 2024 compiling a 97-page report that listed hundreds of ways to possibly save $300 million inside a $6.5 billion budget.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
When key provisions in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' take effect
President Donald Trump signed his landmark tax and spending cuts bill into law on July 4, notching the first major legislative achievement of his second term. Congressional Republicans approved the president's sweeping agenda bill on an ambitious timeline over the blanket opposition of Democrats, as well as some consternation within the GOP over its impact to the federal deficit and certain government programs. Among its myriad provisions, the package makes permanent the 2017 tax cuts that were set to expire at year's end and beefs up funding for defense, border control and immigration enforcement. It also enacts a historic reshaping of the nation's safety net, particularly imposing steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. Some of the measures take effect this year – for instance, the expiration of the electric vehicles tax credit and the temporary elimination of taxes on tips and overtime work. Other provisions don't kick in for several years, notably, after the 2026 midterm elections. Here's a timeline of when key provisions from the president's 'big, beautiful bill' take effect: Several student loan provisions in the bill will take effect next year. Additionally, one month before the midterm elections, a provision limiting Medicaid eligibility for immigrants will set in. Key parts of the bill — including new work requirements and increased eligibility checks for Medicaid — are set to kick in in the lead up to the 2028 presidential election. Still unclear is when two major changes to the food stamp program will take effect. The US Department of Agriculture said it will issue a memorandum to states about implementing the law, including expanding the work requirement to recipients ages 55 to 64 and to parents of children older than 13, as well as limiting the eligibility of certain legal immigrants. Learn more about the bill provisions in our searchable table:
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Democrats Can Finally Stop Pandering to Farmers
Here's some bad news: The 'big, beautiful bill' that President Trump signed into law on July 4 accelerates the egregious bipartisan tradition of showering taxpayer dollars on well-off farmers. It is projected to pour more than $90 billion into new agricultural subsidies and tax credits for farm-grown fuels like corn ethanol, while making it easier for the biggest farmers to vacuum up cash and the least sustainable biofuels to qualify for credits. It gets worse: The congressional Republicans who passed the bill without Democratic votes also ended the tradition of pairing the lavish handouts known as the 'farm safety net' with an actual food safety net for the poor. The bill slashes nearly $200 billion from the federal food stamp program known as SNAP, making life harder for millions of vulnerable families. But here's a potential silver lining: The G.O.P.'s decision to sever the half-century-old pairing of farm handouts with food assistance offers Democratic politicians an opportunity to stop supporting environmentally and fiscally ludicrous subsidies for farmers who wouldn't dream of voting for Democrats. Instead, they could start pushing sensible policies focused on eaters instead of growers. It's time someone in Washington did. For decades, U.S. farm policy has been a bipartisan festival of ag-lobby pandering, shoveling enormous piles of cash to farmers through grants, heavily subsidized loans, even more heavily subsidized insurance, disaster aid and an alphabet soup of other thinly disguised welfare programs. Large farms that grow the most common row crops get the largest subsidies, with extra incentives for corn and soybean growers to produce supposedly eco-friendly biofuels that actually threaten forests and the climate. Republican support for this kind of agricultural socialism is philosophically hypocritical but politically understandable, as rural America has trended overwhelmingly Republican. In the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, the G.O.P. provided more goodies than ever for its loyal base of multimillionaires in John Deere caps, relaxing payment and income limits for the wealthiest farmers, creating new insurance subsidies for big poultry producers and demanding absurdly lenient sustainability analyses of crop-based aviation fuels. In the past, even as their brand became poisonous in rural America, many Democrats pandered to big farmers just as relentlessly as Republicans, supporting most of the same subsidies while echoing the same clichés about 'heartland values.' Urban Democrats who might have otherwise fought farm bills reliably supported them as long as the bills funded food stamps. Would you like to submit a Letter to the Editor? Use the form below to share your thoughts on this or any other piece published in The New York Times in the past seven days. For your letter to be considered for publication, it should be 150 to 300 words and include your first and last names. If it is selected, an editor will contact you to review any necessary edits. Your submission must be exclusive to The New York Times. We do not publish open letters or third-party letters. Click here for more information about the selection process. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
