House GOP hard-liners agree to move ahead with crypto bills, Trump says
Congress needs to approve the request before it expires Friday, or the administration will have to spend the money as lawmakers originally intended. That deadline is looming large as several GOP senators insist the administration clarify what spending it is actually seeking to rescind. They'll question President Donald Trump's budget director Russ Vought during senators' closed-door lunch Tuesday afternoon.
'We still are lacking the level of detail that is needed to make the right decisions,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins told reporters Monday evening. 'It's extremely unusual for any senator to not be able to get that kind of detailed information.'
The Maine Republican is concerned not just over the administration's proposal to scale down the global AIDS-fighting program PEPFAR, but also about broader cutbacks in overseas public health. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told POLITICO he's particularly interested in protecting funding for global food aid programs like Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
It's increasingly evident the rescissions package will have to be changed in order to pass the Senate, and Thune told reporters as he left the Capitol on Monday that leadership is working with wary senators to 'see what a path forward on amendments looks like.'
Senate leaders expect a vote-a-rama on amendments to start Wednesday, teeing up a final vote late Wednesday or early Thursday. If senators are able to advance a package with tweaks, House GOP leaders plan to put the package on the floor Thursday; they have already started to clear away procedural hurdles that would prevent them from passing the spending cut proposal ASAP.
Throwing another wrinkle into it all, though, is that House GOP leaders don't want the Senate amending the package at all, knowing their members will be jammed with changes they don't like and be forced to choose between passing a watered-down product or missing the deadline to act.
'I think you got to respect the White House's request, and that's what we did, so I hope that's what we get back,' Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday. 'There are two big categories of rescissions, and I'm not sure either of them should be subject to dispute.'
It's also unclear whether an amended rescissions package would even have the support in the Republican House. Fiscal hawks are already drawing red lines, with Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) going as far as telling POLITICO he won't support a rescissions package that is 'a penny less' than the House-approved version.
MEANWHILE, IN OTHER FUNDING FIGHTS — Senate appropriators remain at a standstill on moving a funding bill forward for the Commerce and Justice departments. They're trying to schedule a briefing with the FBI on the administration's rationale for abandoning the plan to move the bureau to suburban Maryland, according to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), whose stand against Trump's desire for a site in the District of Columbia derailed a markup of the bill last week.
But Van Hollen insists that even if the FBI assures senators that the Washington location is a secure site, he won't back off his attempt to block the administration from diverting about $1.4 billion that has been set aside for relocating the agency's campus to Maryland.
Across the Capitol: House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said that House leaders began whipping votes Monday night as the chamber prepares to take its vote on the $831.5 billion defense appropriations bill later this week. While defense appropriations bills have been bipartisan in the past, Republicans are expecting this measure to be a largely party-line affair.
What else we're watching:
— Epstein meltdown: We'll see if Republican leaders' headache from their members over the DOJ's failure to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein continues. Rep. Norman voted Monday in favor of a Democratic amendment in the House Rules Committee that would have forced a floor vote on the DOJ releasing more materials from the federal case.
— Russia sanctions timeline: The bipartisan Russian sanctions bill might stall in the House and Senate after Trump announced secondary tariffs on countries trading with Russia. Thune said Monday he would hold off on advancing the bill for now. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise also said a vote could be delayed to post-August recess.
— Dems' last stand against a controversial Trump pick: Senate Democrats are making a final bid to draw the spotlight to a whistleblower's allegations that Emil Bove, a top Justice Department official and 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, urged defiance of the same judicial branch he is seeking to join. Democrats want the whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, to testify before senators prior to their confirmation vote on Bove, which is set for Thursday morning.
Jordain Carney, Katherine Tully-McManus, Jennifer Scholtes, Meredith Lee Hill and Cassandra Dumay contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
India Trade Pact Nears, US Beef Floods In--What Investors Should Watch Next
Australia may be on the brink of deepening its trade ties with India, according to Trade Minister Don Farrell, who suggested a broader free trade deal could have been inked months ago if not for a timing clash with the May election. Speaking at the Lowy Institute, Farrell hinted that the delay was procedural, not political, and noted that his Indian counterpart is currently focused on high-stakes tariff talks with President Donald Trump's administration. The existing FTAsigned back in April 2022cut tariffs across most sectors, but left out sensitive Australian exports like chickpeas, dairy, and wheat. Farrell expects those gaps could be closed bit by bit, as part of a multi-stage rollout. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 7 Warning Signs with TSN. That optimism is surfacing just as India finalizes a major agreement with the UK and bilateral trade with Australia hits nearly A$50 billion ($32.9 billion) in 2023. Farrell said the structure of a final deal with India is likely to be incremental, owing to political realities on both sides. Still, with Canberra actively seeking to diversify away from Chinaits top trading partnera more comprehensive agreement with India could be a meaningful next step. For investors eyeing agri-exporters, particularly in grains and dairy, the next phase of negotiations could shape longer-term access to one of the world's fastest-growing consumer markets. In a separate move with potential ripple effects, Australia just lifted all remaining restrictions on US beef importsa long-standing ask from the Trump administration. The announcement triggered a celebratory post from President Trump on TruthSocial, but Farrell was quick to tamp down the political narrative, stating the decision was based on science and years of internal review. We haven't done this to win favorwe think the Americans should trade with us anyway, he said. Whether this opens the door to a broader trade pact with the US remains to be seen, but the development is unlikely to go unnoticed by investors in US meat giants like Tyson Foods (NYSE:TSN) or Brazil's JBS, both of which could stand to benefit from expanded market access. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From Columbia University to Paramount, Trump keeps getting his way as America's 1st 'suer in chief'
Donald Trump is no stranger to lawsuits. In fact, he was involved in more than 4,000 of them before winning the White House in 2016. Since then, Trump has made headlines mostly as a defendant — that is, the individual getting sued (for sexual abuse and defamation; for business fraud; for hush-money payments; for trying to end birthright citizenship; and so on). But now, six months into his second presidential term, Trump is positioning himself as something new: America's first 'suer in chief.' And the strategy seems to be working. Late Wednesday, the Trump administration and Columbia University announced that they had settled a months-long dispute that started when the White House accused the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students from discrimination during recent Gaza War protests — then froze the majority of its $1.3 billion a year in federal research grants and funding. To end the ordeal, Columbia agreed to pay the U.S. treasury more than $200 million over the next three years while scrutinizing international students more closely and releasing data to show that admissions and hiring are based on 'merit' rather than 'diversity.' (An independent monitor will oversee the deal and report to the government every six months.) In return, the administration agreed to restore Columbia's federal cash flow. Trump's spat with Columbia didn't technically take the form of a lawsuit; instead, the president has been using his executive powers — launching investigations, withholding money — to pressure elite campuses to conform to his ideological preferences. (The University of Michigan, Duke University and Cornell University are negotiating with the White House as well.) The logic, however, is the same: imposing your will through aggressive — and expensive — lawfare. As a real-estate mogul, Trump perfected this tactic long ago under the tutelage of his pugnacious lawyer Roy Cohn. But no one else has ever really used it as president. Here are a few of the suer in chief's recent wins. Paramount In October, then-candidate Trump sued Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris. Trump's allegation? That the program violated Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which generally targets false advertising, by only including part of her answer to a question about the Gaza War in its main broadcast. 'The work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,' Harris said in the interview. 'We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris's answer aired on 60 Minutes. The first part did not, appearing instead on CBS's social-media accounts and in a promo that aired on another CBS program, Face the Nation. 'To paper over Kamala's 'word salad' weakness, CBS used its national platform on 60 Minutes to cross the line from the exercise of judgment in reporting to deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news,' Trump's lawsuit claimed. In response, CBS insisted that Trump's 'repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false. The interview was not doctored and 60 Minutes did not hide any part of Vice President Harris's answer to the question at issue. 60 Minutes fairly presented the interview to inform the audience and not to mislead it. The lawsuit Trump brought against CBS is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it.' Editing for brevity is commonplace in television, and many legal experts agreed that the case was frivolous, arguing that Paramount would win in court on First Amendment grounds. Yet on July 2, the company decided to settle with Trump and pay $16 million to his future presidential library. Skeptics claimed that Paramount's decision — which involves no admission of wrongdoing — had less to do with journalism than with business, insisting that what the company really wanted was for Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to sign off on its proposed $8 billion mega-merger with the Hollywood studio Skydance. On July 18, Paramount announced that it would be cancelling its long-running Late Show with host Stephen Colbert, a frequent Trump critic. The company said the decision was 'purely financial.' And then on Thursday, the FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger. Trump has claimed that as part of the Paramount settlement, he 'also anticipate[s] receiving $20 Million Dollars more from the new Owners, in Advertising, PSAs, or similar Programming' on CBS in the future. If the Skydance deal goes through, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison and his son, David, will control Paramount. The elder Ellison is a Trump friend and donor. Earlier this week, South Park kicked off its 27th season with an episode about religion in schools that skewered Paramount — just one day after signing its own $1.5 billion deal with the company. 'I didn't want to come back and be in the school, but I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount,' Jesus tells some reluctant South Park parents. He then urges them to settle with Trump, who has threatened to sue for $5 billion if they don't let Jesus in. 'You guys saw what happened to CBS? Well, guess who owns CBS. Paramount,' Jesus says. 'You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys got to stop being stupid. … He also has the power to sue and take bribes and he can do anything to anyone.' At the end of the episode, the townspeople agree to pay Trump $3.5 million and create 'pro-Trump messaging.' ABC News In a similar (though much simpler) case, Trump sued ABC News and its This Week host George Stephanopoulos last March for defamation over a segment in which Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Trump had been found liable for 'rape' in a sexual assault case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Stephanopoulos's statements were incorrect. Asked on its verdict sheet whether Carroll had proved by a preponderance of evidence that Trump had 'raped' her under New York's narrow legal definition — which requires vaginal penetration by a penis — the jury answered no. Instead, they found Trump liable for 'sexual abuse.' At the time, the judge said that Trump's behavior — which, according to Carroll, included yanking down her tights and shoving his hand inside her — would mean that 'Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word rape.' 'Indeed,' the judge added, 'the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.' But legal experts largely agreed that Stephanopoulos should have used the phrase 'sexual abuse' rather than the word rape, and in December 2024 ABC News agreed to settle the lawsuit by paying $15 million toward Trump's future presidential library and another $1 million in legal fees. Meta Way back in July 2021, Trump sued Meta and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for suspending his Facebook and Instagram accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Privately owned social media platforms are permitted under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to moderate their services by removing posts that violate their standards — as long as they are acting in 'good faith.' Users agree to these terms of service when they sign up. Yet Trump claimed in his suit that Meta was engaging in 'illegal, shameful censorship of the American people.' Not much happened in the case for a few years — until Trump won the 2024 election. At that point, Zuckerberg visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, where the incoming president 'brought up the litigation and suggested they try to resolve it,' according to the Associated Press. Two months later, in January of this year, Meta agreed to donate $22 million to Trump's presidential library and pay $3 million in legal fees. Around the same time, Meta announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs and eliminating fact-checking on Facebook — both longtime priorities of Trump and his allies. The company also made a $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural committee, and Zuckerberg sat front and center at his swearing-in. Law firms In the early weeks of his second term, Trump issued executive orders targeting three prominent law firms that had pursued what he viewed as politically motivated investigations and lawsuits against him and his allies. One was Perkins Coie, a firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and repeatedly won election law cases in 2020 against Trump's campaign. Another was Covington & Burling, a firm that provided legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Trump. And the third was Paul Weiss — a firm whose chairman, Brad Karp, 'has a long history of fund-raising for Democrats [and] sought to unite major law firms in 'a call to arms' to fight Mr. Trump in court on issues like his administration's policy of separating migrant children from their parents,' according to the New York Times. In his orders, Trump effectively sought to cripple these firms by revoking their lawyers' security clearances — which they need to represent key clients — and limiting their access to government buildings and officials. Again, it wasn't a lawsuit, per se — but it was a form of lawfare. And again, it worked. In March, Trump announced Karp had agreed to represent clients regardless of their political affiliation; to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed, including 'the President's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism'; and to end its internal DEI policies. In exchange, Trump rescinded his order against Paul Weiss. A few days later, however, the president issued a new order directing the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security departments to 'seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States' or in matters that come before federal agencies. Eventually, eight other firms followed Paul Weiss's lead, committing a combined total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to initiatives supported by the Trump administration in order to avoid becoming targets themselves. 'This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,' Samuel Buell, a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times.
Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump administration to release billions in frozen education funds
The Trump administration will release more than $5 billion in frozen funds for schools, the Department of Education announced Friday. The big picture: The administration has been facing bipartisan pressure to release the funds, with GOP senators issuing a public plea. Driving the news: The White House Office of Management and Budget completed a review of Title I-C, Title II-A, Title III-A, and Title IV-A ESEA funds and Title II WIOA funds and directed the Education Department to release them, department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said in an emailed statement. The agency will begin dispersing funds to states next week, she added. What they're saying: Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( who was among the Republican lawmakers who signed onto a letter urging the administration to release the funding, said Friday that the funding supports critical programs people rely on. "The programs are ones that enjoy longstanding, bipartisan support like after-school and summer programs that provide learning and enrichment opportunities for school aged children, which also enables their parents to work and contribute to local economies, and programs to support adult learners working to gain employment skills, earn workforce certifications, or transition into postsecondary education, Capito said.
