WATCH LIVE: Trump's promise hits Capitol Hill: Senate targets ‘criminal aliens' in sweeping security push
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Live updates: Trump heading to Scotland as controversy over Epstein files swirls in Washington
President Donald Trump is heading to Scotland on Friday as the controversy over his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files continues to dominate discussion in Washington. Trump's trip is scheduled to include a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer focused heavily on trade and the opening of a third Trump golf course in Scotland. On Thursday, Trump visited the Federal Reserve, whose chair he has heavily criticized, and issued an executive order directing federal agencies to find ways to make it easier to forcibly hospitalize homeless people with mental illness and addiction for longer periods. President Donald Trump endorsed former Republican congressman Mike Rogers on Thursday night in the race for an open Senate seat in Michigan. 'From the U.S. Army to Congress, Mike has served our Nation with distinction, and will bring that same Fighting Spirit to the U.S. Senate,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. TALLAHASSEE — Jeffrey Epstein's imprisoned former associate Ghislaine Maxwell met with a top Justice Department official for about five hours Thursday, her attorney said, answering every question in 'a very productive day.' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said he would continue interviewing Maxwell on Friday. Worried they could face a difficult 2026, Republicans are taking steps now to shore up their House majority even if voters turn against them. The Justice Department on Thursday appeared to have found a work-around for President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Alina Habba to continue as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor, through a complex procedural maneuver aimed at eking victory out of a standoff between the Trump administration and the state's federal judges over the post.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats pressure Schumer, Senate to hold line on GOP spending bills
House Democrats are cranking up the pressure on their Senate colleagues to hold the line against any Republican spending bills, warning that support for partisan legislation would prove more harmful than a potential shutdown — and trigger an outcry from the party's already deflated base. House Democrats were virtually united against a GOP spending package in March, only to see Senate Democrats — most notably Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — help Republicans advance it into law. The episode infuriated Democrats in and out of Congress, eroded trust between the chambers and raised some questions about Schumer's future at the top of the party. Yet with another spending battle brewing for September — and Republicans already eyeing steep federal cuts anathema across the aisle — House Democrats are holding out hope that this time will be different. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is already warning that a Republican-only spending package is 'dead on arrival.' And even those lawmakers most critical of Schumer's strategy in March are predicting the chambers will be united when the battle heats up ahead of the Oct. 1 shutdown deadline. 'Leader Jeffries putting that strong line down is something I support, and something I think that our whole party will rally around,' said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who had scorched Schumer's handling of the earlier debate. Democrats are pointing to two reasons why they think the current spending fight might play out differently from the one in March, when Schumer joined nine other Senate Democrats to advance the Republican spending bill. First, the recent GOP efforts to claw back funds already approved by Congress has united House and Senate Democrats, who are accusing Republicans of violating bipartisan deals negotiated in good faith. Those so-called rescissions have diminished the Democrats' trust in President Trump and Republicans to honor spending agreements, even when both parties are on board, while giving Democrats plenty of ammunition to justify their opposition to GOP-only bills. Russell Vought, Trump's budget director, has fueled those arguments by recently advising Republicans to abandon bipartisanship in setting federal spending. 'My hope is that, due to what has happened — especially with the Republicans using rescissions to essentially renege on deals that were made before … the Senate sees that and says, 'They're not operating in good faith,'' said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). Others pointed to Trump's record of shifting funds — or simply refusing to spend money on the programs Congress intended — as reason for Senate Democrats to reject any spending bills that lack bipartisan buy-in — or guardrails that would ensure funds go where they're directed. 'Right now, we have a president that's operating outside of the bounds of the law and the Constitution — a president that doesn't give a damn about checks and balances, doesn't give a damn what you actually pass, he's going to do whatever he wants,' said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.). 'So why are you going to help the Republicans pass something that's going to be devastating? And then he's going to take it a step further?' Secondly, in light of the outcry that followed Schumer's actions in March, many Democrats suggested he simply couldn't survive another round of internal attacks. 'I had a phone call last night about this issue. [The caller said], 'Well, Schumer is probably going to fold.' And I said, 'No, no, he's not going to,'' said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). 'His future might hinge on this, but I also think that it will be the most obvious thing for him to do,' he continued. 'I think he realized that our base is not going to tolerate us just rolling over and rolling over.' Schumer, in recent days, has taken long strides to reassure fellow Democrats that he's ready for a fight. In floor speeches and press conferences, the Senate's top Democrat has warned Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) that partisan spending bills, to include rescissions, have threatened to destroy a decades-old tradition of bipartisan appropriations. Schumer is also going out of his way to align himself with House Democrats on the issue. 'We're in agreement. We all want to pursue a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations process,' Schumer told reporters after a meeting with Jeffries. 'That's how it's always been done successfully, and we believe that should happen.' His words haven't been overlooked by House Democrats, who are cheering Schumer's warning shots delivered so far ahead of the shutdown deadline. Their focus on the Senate is practical: The filibuster is the single most powerful tool available to the minority Democrats, and only the Senate has access to it. 'He seems to be setting forth, well in advance of the deadline, what his bottom lines are,' said Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.). 'I appreciate what he's saying that they have a slightly different role in that they can actually stop this. At the same token, they can actually stop this, and insist on a more bipartisan approach.' In March, Schumer made the calculation that allowing the government to shut down — and risk having Democrats be blamed — would prove more harmful than enduring the inevitable friendly fire from liberals that would come from supporting the GOP package. This time around, some Democrats say he has much more cover. 'I have confidence in Sen. Schumer, because I think that was then and this is now. And now, I think, it is clear that we — on both sides [of the Capitol] — should stick to our core values and vote no,' said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.). 'I understand his concern back then,' he added. 'But I think public opinion, and of course reality, shows that the American people are willing to understand a shutdown, because they also understand that the details of many of these spending bills are horrific, and that it would impact their personal lives.' Jeffries, for his part, is vowing that House Democrats will be united against partisan GOP spending bills. And he's predicting that, this time, Democratic senators will be allies in that fight. 'A partisan spending bill is dead on arrival in terms of securing significant Democratic support or any Democratic support in the House,' he said, 'and I believe that that is the case in the Senate, as well.' Most Democrats seem to agree, but there are also signs that the distrust created in March is still lingering ahead of the next shutdown battle. 'This is politics, so you can only trust people as far as you can throw 'em. And especially senators,' Gomez said. 'Call me crazy, but I don't like cutting deals with somebody that continues to be punching me in the face and then says that they're doing me a favor,' he added. 'And that's what Donald Trump does to the Senate Democrats every time they capitulate on that kind of … legislation.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump targets disaster mitigation funds, raising risks in future crises
The Trump administration appears to be drastically reducing the federal funds it offers to help states head off future natural disasters, a decision that could come under fire as the White House faces scrutiny over its response to Texas's deadly flooding. The administration has responded to criticism of its handling of the Texas floods with claims that it is 'remaking' the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to better help states. But after the deadly Independence Day floods, the administration declined to provide Texas with access to a tranche of FEMA funds aimed at heading off the next disaster — money intended to pay for things such as warning systems, tornado shelters and anti-flood measures. A review of federal documents by The Hill shows that the administration denied such 'hazard mitigation' funds to states after 16 out of 18 flood disasters during the Trump presidency, with both of the approvals coming before mid-March. In May, children in a Missouri elementary school sheltered from a tornado that shattered windows and ripped gutters off the building inside a safe room purchased with hazard mitigation money issued after the deadly 2011 Joplin tornado. Though the Trump administration approved Missouri's disaster declaration, it refused the hazard mitigation funds the state requested to buy generators and more outdoor warning sirens, state officials told The Hill. Missouri is appealing that decision. In neighboring Oklahoma, the Biden administration had in November approved hazard mitigation funding for wildfires and straight-line winds. But even as those funds went out, more wildfires, driven by straight-line winds, were raging across the Sooner State. President Trump issued a disaster declaration on the last day of the weeklong emergency — but denied hazard mitigation funding. It was the first time in at least 15 years that Oklahoma wasn't approved for requested hazard mitigation, according to state emergency management officials. This pivot — which breaks longstanding federal precedent — comes amid steep Trump cuts to FEMA, which he has also talked about eliminating entirely, as well as cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the federal forecasting and research apparatus. Veterans of these agencies told The Hill there has been appetite for reform and arguments made for shifting more responsibility to the states. 'But this is like, 'You need an appendectomy? Well, let's get the garden shears,'' said Candace Valenzuela, former HUD director for the region that includes Texas. Experts say cutting off hazard mitigation funds after floods marks a major shift in federal priorities. FEMA has traditionally given states 15 to 20 percent of the disaster response budget to help prevent future catastrophes — spending the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found pays for itself by at least $2 saved for every $1 invested. That return is even greater for flood mitigation, where the CBO found every dollar spent yields $5 to $8 in avoided damages. And that benefit is growing. Over the past decade, floods have cost the U.S. an average of $46 billion a year — or $135 annually per American — a figure expected to rise to as much as $60 billion by midcentury as the atmosphere warms and holds more moisture. A wetter atmosphere, in turn, means more extreme rainfall such as the deluge that hit Central Texas earlier this month. Former meteorologist and National Weather Service (NWS) union legislative director John Sokich said he's seen more such downpours 'in the last 10 years than I saw in my 35 years before that.' Those worsening events make proactive spending even more effective, said Chad Berginnis, head of the Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM). 'If you have more and more extreme events in the area you've mitigated, your benefits come faster,' Berginnis said. The administration has also frozen a major flood mitigation program and clawed back funds from flood control projects nationwide that were already underway. Last week, a coalition of 20 blue and purple states sued the federal government over the clawback of funding for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which began under the first Trump administration. Money pulled from BRIC included funds that would have paid for an Oklahoma flood warning system, a North Texas flood control dam and $1 billion in flood control projects across the Chesapeake Bay. 'The impact of the shutdown has been devastating,' the states wrote in their suit. 'Communities across the country are being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects,' many of which had cost millions and had taken years to plan and permit. 'In the meantime, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters,' the suit added. The states also argued the pullback was illegal since Congress made forward-looking mitigation one of FEMA's core responsibilities in 1997. The administration did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the shift in FEMA strategy. Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has said the administration is 'leading a historic, first-of-its-kind approach to disaster funding.' That approach, she said, means 'providing upfront recovery support — moving money faster than ever and jump starting recovery,' while pivoting away from 'bloated, D.C.-centric dead weight to a lean, deployable disaster force' that shifts responsibility to the states. But emergency managers say the administration is cutting off vital resources that states and municipalities need to avoid financial ruin from worsening disasters. 'Mitigation is a lifeline,' Berginnis said. 'It's a way out of a really bad cycle of disaster, damage, repair, damage that a lot of folks of modest means really can't escape.' As a state emergency manager in Ohio, he said he saw FEMA hazard mitigation funding change lives by allowing the state to buy out flood-prone properties. By contrast, FEMA's 'individual assistance' programs, which the administration continues to offer, only cover structural repairs, often for homes likely to flood again. 'When I presented a check to buy out his property, the owner said, 'This is the only chance for me and my family to get our lives back to normal,'' Berginnis recalled. In addition to dramatically cutting back funds to help states and municipalities prepare for the next flood, the administration also quietly changed FEMA standards to make it easier to build in floodplains. One thing amplifying flood danger in the United States is that the nation's builders, insurers and emergency managers often don't even know how bad the flood risk is because it has never been assessed for most of the country's creeks and streams. The deadly July 4 flooding that swept away more than two dozen children and counselors from Camp Mystic in Hunt, Texas, for example, came when Cypress Creek burst its banks. That risk was obscured, Berginnis noted, because like two-thirds of similar waterways around the country, its floodways have never been mapped. ASFPM has estimated that a complete re-mapping project would cost about $3 billion to $12 billion — just 3 to 25 percent the annual cost of flood repair, which they say that mapping would reduce. Once that project was done, they estimated, keeping it up to date would cost $100 million to $500 million per year, or between 0.2 and 1 percent of current annual spending on flood damages. This is not money that the current administration seems eager to spend, however. Instead, it is moving away from spending on forecasting or research — including into how to best warn communities when deadly threats are coming their way. DOGE cuts have disrupted a NWS reorganization meant to centralize operations so field offices could spend more time helping local emergency managers interpret often-ambiguous forecasts, agency veterans said. That program had aimed to address the challenge that emergencies like the one in Kerr County are low-likelihood but high-impact, which can breed complacency until it's too late. Rather than pivot, NWS is 'trying to keep its head above water,' said Alan Gerard, a former NOAA warnings expert who took a buyout this year. He warned that other cuts threaten research to understand the novel weather patterns of a hotter planet — research that could one day give communities like Kerr County six hours' warning before fast-moving storms. 'That stuff is still years away — both from the physical science aspect, and the social science of helping people understand it,' he said. If the Trump cuts go through, he said, 'that would all stop.'
