Republicans rediscover the one weird trick that actually cuts spending
Well, this is awkward. After the relationship between President Donald Trump and businessman Elon Musk very publicly soured, Congress is considering action on the primary product of that relationship: spending cuts suggested by the U.S. DOGE Service.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Texas redistricting: Republicans propose new map, Democrats try to counter
WASHINGTON − An ongoing effort by Republicans to redraw Texas' congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections continues to agitate Democrats across the country, as they search for ways to block or counter an initiative sought by President Donald Trump. The White House has urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and state Republicans to advance on a rare mid-decade redistricting, with the hope that shifting boundaries could help the party pick up as many as five seats in next year's race for control of the U.S. House. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, and the GOP are hoping the boost can help them hang onto their razor-thin lower chamber majority during the final two years of Trump's second term and amid the 2028 race for the White House. Texas Democrats balked when Abbott agreed to add redistricting to their to-do list for a 30-day special session that began July 21 in Austin. Now, liberal lawmakers are crying foul with blue state governors threatening tit-for-tat responses and Texas Democrats weighing their own limited protest options as the GOP seeks to make major changes to the critical voter boundary lines that make up the nation's second largest congressional delegation. Here's the latest to know on the controversial redistricting effort happening in the Lone Star State. What could a new map look like? Texas Republicans released their proposed new map on July 30. Ahead of the official release, Punchbowl News first reported that the anticipated redraw would shift district boundaries around Dallas, Houston, Austin and the Rio Grande Valley. There would still be 38 total seats in the Texas delegation under the new maps - leaving it second only to California's 52 seats. But five Texas seats would be redrawn in a bid that Republican envision giving their candidates a leg up with more GOP voters. Democrats who at risk of losing their spot in Congress include Reps. Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez and Marc Veasey, according to Punchbowl. Democrats charge partisan law violation The rare push to redraw the boundary lines has led Democratic senators to accuse Trump administration officials of breaking a decades-old law limiting executive branch employees from engaging in partisan activities − such as advocating for a state's redistricting in order to benefit their political party. In a letter to the Office of Special Counsel, California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, along with Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse and Illinois' Dick Durbin, called for an investigation into members of Trump's White House and Justice Department, accusing them of breaking the Hatch Act. "The purpose of this redistricting push is to defeat Democratic Members of Congress and elect Republicans to affect the balance of political party power in the 120th Congress," the senators wrote. "While such goals are appropriate for a political party organization, they are not appropriate for executive branch officials," they added, "especially at the Department of Justice which must take greater steps to ensure it acts with impartiality." The Hatch Act does not apply to the president or vice president. Hakeem Jeffries took a trip to Texas House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, made a trip to Texas July 30, the same day Republicans released their proposed map. While there, Politico reported that Jeffries planned to meet with Rep. Al Green, a Houston lawmaker whose district could be caught in the crosshairs of a major map shake up. "We understand that this is all hands on deck for us in the Democratic Party," Green told Politico. Jeffries has been vocal in his opposition to the redistricting plans, saying in a July 15 press conference, "Texas Republicans are likely going to continue to act like political punks and bend the knee to Donald Trump's extreme agenda." Later, he told CNN, regarding Democrats' response: "Let me just simply say the maps in New York are not as fair as they could be." Redistricting arms race could ensue Jeffries is not the only blue state lawmaker proposing an equal and opposite reaction to Texas. Democrats coast-to-coast have promised a full-scale counterattack, should the Lone Star State move forward with redistricting. "We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine the voices of the American people," Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Democrat from Washington and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters at a meeting July 23. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has suggested a redistricting in his state to offset Republican actions. (But unlike in Texas where legislators decide district lines, Newsom does face a major obstacle in the form of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps.) The response from Democrats has enticed other Republican-controlled states to potentially jump in too. Missouri Republicans are pondering a plan to give their party a geographical leg up, and legislatures in other states such as Florida and New Hampshire have the ability to reevaluate maps like Texas. Texas Democrats eye leaving the state Back in Texas, Democrats have a limited number of options to counter a GOP-controlled state House and Senate. Their primary tool is a controversial and seldom used move to flee the state and break the quorum necessary to proceed in the legislative session. State Democrats last used the measure in 2021 to protest new voting restrictions. After that episode, in which representatives halted operations for 38 days, Republicans approved a $500 a day fine for breaking quorum. The monetary punishment could be enough to give Democrats pause about leaving the state this time. However, the Texas Tribune reported deep-pocked Democratic donors are ready to assist and enable a potential walkout.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ron Paul slams cruel response to Gaza famine; libertarians oppose starvation!
It's not only my friends on the left who are concerned about the plight of the innocent civilians in Gaza. Former Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican revered by non-interventionists for opposing war and speaking out against some of the actions of the Israeli government, is slamming those in the U.S. who are evincing indifference to the suffering of the Gazans. Worse than indifference, at least one member of Congress even indicated that he supports the starvation of the Gazans. That's contemptible. Here is Dr. Paul speaking out, during a podcast with Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. 'You know, summarizing what you say, about the hostages, 'release the hostages,' the way I would phrase that, 'do what we say or these are the results, we're gonna starve, starve the little ones.' It's hard for me to accept that as a basic principle, so the people in this country surely ought to be at least thoughtful enough to look at both sides of this. To look at pictures like that and what's going on — the truth is, what happens in these countries, and a lot of bad things happen, it happens with U.S. support, and that means morally we are responsible.' Paul was reacting to a post on X by Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican of Florida. In that post, Fine wrote: 'Release the hostages. Until then, starve away.' And then he added: 'This is all a lie anyway. It amazes me that the media continues to regurgitate Muslim terror propaganda.' Now look, I have seen it suggested that not all the images of Gazan children starving that have been circulated in the media are accurate. But isn't that beside the point? We know from multiple credible accounts that there is a serious risk of famine in the Gaza Strip — that the people there are in desperate shape. And according to Fine, they should all starve because Hamas is still keeping hostages? It should go without saying, but that is an appalling moral outlook. If you are willing to starve thousands and thousands of innocent people in order to punish terrorists hiding among them, where does your penchant for collective punishment and retaliatory violence end? We obviously would not apply so logic to ourselves: Evil actions on the part of our government would not justify the deliberate starvation of thousands of American people. And as Dr. Paul points out in his video, it's not as if anyone is asking the American taxpayers to forcibly contribute to the aid of Gazans: What we are saying is that aid organizations should be allowed to operate in the Gaza Strip. Israel has bombed and bombed and bombed Gaza, crippled its infrastructure, and killed thousands of people. At this point, the government of Israel does bear some moral responsibility for the suffering of the people there. The U.S. government cannot take the position that Israel is free to blockade the strip and prevent willing aid organizations from distributing food to the people there. It's unconscionable. I share the goal of destroying Hamas. But the destruction of Hamas cannot come at any cost. This cost is too high — especially when the U.S. government will be treated as morally complicit, given our ironclad support of Israel. Ron Paul is not the only Republican who thinks Randy Fine's stance on starvation in Gaza is evil. So too does a man named Aaron Baker. Baker writes on X: 'I do NOT support starving children. I do NOT support punishing citizens for having the worst government in existence.' Baker is a pro-Trump, pro-Second Amendment, pro-free-speech, pro-border, pro-capitalism, America First Republican, and he is running in the Republican primary against Randy Fine in 2026. Floridians should pay attention to him.
WIRED
14 minutes ago
- WIRED
The Trump-Crypto Honeymoon Is Over
Jul 30, 2025 11:00 AM The flood of crypto money in the 2024 election was one of the biggest breaks for the Trump campaign. Six months into the term, the relationship might be cooling. Photo-illustration: WIRED Staff; Getty Images As with any fledgling romance, Trumpworld and big money cryptocurrency interests were bound to have their first fight at some point. It was late June heading into July, and two highly anticipated bills were in the pipeline to help fulfill President Donald Trump's promises to make the US the 'crypto capital of the planet' and usher in what his supporters believed would be a 'golden age' of digital assets. Congress had one shot at passing something before the August recess. Coinbase, the cryptocurrency exchange, and Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm known as a16z, were, according to two Republicans involved in the negotiations, calling around to members to see if they could combine components of the two bills, known as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act. The former more narrowly covered the realm of stablecoins; the latter was a more ambitious overhaul of how crypto products are regulated more broadly. Joining them together would give the industry what it failed to get during President Joe Biden's term—a comprehensive framework that would give the industry regulatory certainty and a clear path to profit, legally, off of these digital assets for the foreseeable future. But the White House was not happy, and made sure to let the two power players know it. To the Trump administration, this attempt at political maneuvering was slowing down a much awaited win for crypto. 'We said, you're just fuckin' wrong,' a senior administration source involved in negotiations over crypto legislation tells me, requesting anonymity to describe private deliberations over the two most significant pieces of legislation for the industry. 'They were being hissy pissy about the way to do things,' the senior administration official says. 'But you know, it's not just their call.' The White House promised the firms they'd get their more prized regulatory overhaul—but it would be separate, and they'd have to wait. Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz, and the White House did not return requests for comment. It's been pretty clear for quite some time: Trumpworld loves crypto. Almost everywhere you look in the second Trump administration, there's a crypto connection. The president, most notably, has his own memecoin, and his two eldest sons, Eric and Don Jr., are involved in a variety of crypto ventures, including World Liberty Financial and its stablecoin. Despite cryptocurrency being immensely profitable for the Trump family and vice versa, though, cracks are beginning to emerge in a key alliance that helped bring the president back to power. The dustup around stablecoin and market structure legislation could be the first preview of more fissures to come. It doesn't have the flair, the trappings, the egos, or the household name personalities of the Musk-Trump breakup, and the gripes involved aren't necessarily even about ideology or policy. But this brewing lovers' quarrel does say something about how power works in Trump 2.0, and it very well could have far-reaching implications for the global economy. You Can't Always Get What You Want At this time last year, Trump was successfully digging his campaign out of a fundraising cash crunch as former vice president Kamala Harris took over as the Democratic nominee. While Harris would revive sagging donor sentiment in her party, millions had been pouring into what was then known as the Save America PAC, which until then had covered many of Trump's legal expenses. Much of what shifted crypto's attitude towards the GOP was vibes based. Sources of mine in Trumpworld and in the crypto community said they felt the Biden administration and Democratic Party more broadly were overly hostile to blockchain-based businesses. 'The crypto community was almost libertarian and apolitical for a while,' my source tied into the donor space tells me. But as the business grew under the Biden administration, more regulation by enforcement occurred—the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, brought at least 83 crypto-related enforcement actions, initiating lawsuits against companies like Coinbase and Kraken, according to Reuters, arguing that their products should be regulated like securities—and donors felt 'an animosity' from the White House that pushed them into Trump's coffers, they explained. (Months into the second Trump administration, those lawsuits were dismissed.) However, sources in both Trumpworld and on the blockchain side of the equation tell me crypto donors have become impatient with the return on their investment from the campaign, which came in at just under $250 million raised by crypto-aligned and related PACs and super PACs when all was said and done. Getting their favorite parts of both the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act over the line—including what they viewed as more favorable regulation under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, rather than the SEC—was an opportunity to cash in. This is where Coinbase and a16z got involved. Both firms have key connections in Trump's orbit—most notably, respectively, Chris LaCivita, the former 2024 Trump co-campaign manager, works on the global advisory council for Coinbase, while a16z is cofounded by Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley billionaire and cocreator of the modern web browser, who wields influence primarily through Vice President JD Vance. These power players wanted to effectively merge the stablecoin bill with the more ambitious and wide-reaching CLARITY Act, according to two sources familiar with the proceedings. Coinbase specifically ruffled feathers in the House GOP conference, another Republican operative in Trumpworld tells me. 'It was one of those things with, if you're gonna throw your weight around … at the end of the day they wasted two weeks of the legislative calendar by slowing everything down.' Another sticking point, the senior administration official and GOP operative tells me, is around Coinbase appearing too chummy with Democrats after bringing on David Plouffe, the former Obama and Harris strategist, to join the organization's global advisory council in addition to LaCivita and others. Even though plenty of industries depend on maintaining relationships with lawmakers in both parties, Trumpworld has grown increasingly wary of any perception of camaraderie between the crypto crowd and Democrats, with Plouffe being the most prominent example. 'If [Democrats] take power again, you're not getting shit,' says the senior administration source, 'and all of your bets are wasted.' The message from Trumpworld to the crypto community heading into the next phase of legislation is simple: Play by our rules, or good luck getting anything from a possible future Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. 'These guys just need to understand that if they stick with us they have a good chance of success—rowing against us will almost guarantee failure,' the administration source tells me. 'And they shouldn't play both sides beyond getting the bare minimum of Democrat votes on legislation … They should wake up.' Underneath all the wrangling is the substance of the legislation—even if the legislative gambit had been successful, it may have ultimately backfired. 'It's a case of be careful what you wish for,' says James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University. 'The problem with the CLARITY Act is this tremendous lack of clarity that it really gives us.' It's still unclear where the CFTC authority ends and the SEC's begins under the proposed law, according to Angel. And either way, he says, the evangelists shouldn't be surprised if the CFTC ultimately cracks down on crypto as well. As for the rough-and-tumble of getting legislation through Congress, the senior administration source says this is a welcome-to-the-club moment for the crypto community. 'Welcome to Congress,' the official says. 'You're just one of many who's been chewed up and spit out.' This is an edition of Jake Lahut's Inner Loop newsletter. Read previous newsletters here.
