Latest news with #119thCongress
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Don Bacon won't seek reelection in competitive Nebraska district
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) announced Monday that he would not seek reelection in 2026, opening up what will likely be a competitive race for Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. 'After consultation with my family and much prayer, I have decided not to seek reelection in 2026 and will fulfill my term in the 119th Congress through January 2, 2027,' the 61-year-old Bacon said in a statement. 'After three decades in the Air Force and now going on one decade in Congress, I look forward to coming home in the evenings and being with my wife and seeing more of our adult children and eight grandchildren, who all live near my home. I've been married for 41 years, and I'd like to dedicate more time to my family, my church, and the Omaha community,' he continued. 'I also want to continue advocating for a strong national security strategy and a strong alliance system with countries that share our love of democracy, free markets and the rule of law.' The announcement comes days after a source familiar confirmed to The Hill that Bacon would not seek reelection next year. Bacon's decision to retire creates an open seat in one of the most competitive congressional districts in the country. Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, was won by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and presents an opportunity for Democrats to pick up the 'blue dot' district Bacon has held since winning it in 2016. Live updates: Senate debates 'big, beautiful bill' 'The writing has been on the wall for months. Nebraskans are tired of the false promises that Republicans are trying to sell and they want real results,' said Madison Andrus, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Don Bacon's decision to not seek reelection in 2026 is the latest vote of no-confidence for House Republicans and their electoral prospects. Next November, Nebraskans are going to elect a Democrat who will actually deliver for them.' The House Republican campaign arm emphasized it continues to feel confident that Republicans will maintain their hold on Bacon's seat. 'Don Bacon has served our country with honor after nearly 30 years in uniform and nearly a decade in Congress. Thanks to his steadfast commitment to duty and principled leadership, both Nebraska and our nation are stronger today,' said Zach Bannon, a spokesperson at the National Republican Congressional Committee. 'As we look ahead, Republicans are confident in keeping Nebraska's 2nd District red as we maintain and expand our majority in the House,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
7NEWS
15-07-2025
- Politics
- 7NEWS
Rogue Trump impeachment efforts divide Democrats
House Democrats have been publicly grappling with the issue of impeaching President Donald Trump, with grassroots activists pressuring lawmakers to more aggressively confront Trump and centrist members of the party dismissing the push as futile. During a six-week stretch this year, House Democrats twice were confronted with impeachment votes — forced by their own rank-and-file members — that had zero chance of passing, given that Republicans control the chamber. In May, Democratic leaders convinced Shri Thanedar (Michigan) to back off his impeachment push at the last minute. But the following month, Al Green (Texas), forced a failed vote to impeach Trump, exposing stark divisions among Democrats and putting the party's vulnerable members in a difficult position ahead of next year's midterm elections. Before the 119th Congress is over, it's likely there will be other pushes to impeach Trump, who survived two such efforts during his first term, even as many Democrats grow frustrated by them. 'They're massively unhelpful, and they just fire up the base,' said one moderate House Democrat who opposed the recent impeachment efforts. A second centrist Democrat called them a 'waste of time,' and suggested that colleagues who had voted for impeachment had only done so to appease the party's base. 'Even people that voted 'no' on it, they don't really want to impeach Trump. But they have to feed the left-wing base,' said the second Democrat, who spoke anonymously to freely discuss internal party dynamics. 'They don't want to have to go home and answer questions why they didn't vote for impeachment.' That lawmaker said impeachment should only be pursued after holding a committee investigation and hearings — and that won't happen until Democrats win back the majority. 'If you respect the process here, you don't go right to an impeachment vote,' the lawmaker said. 'You go through a process, and then you have an impeachment vote. So let's go through that process.' That was the roadmap that House Democrats followed in 2019 during Trump's first impeachment, over allegations he withheld military aid to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into political rival Joe Biden's family. Democrats voted to launch a formal impeachment investigation, took closed-door testimony and held a series of televised hearings. The second impeachment, in the wake of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, happened in a much more haphazard way as Trump was preparing to leave office. There was no lengthy House investigation or hearings before an impeachment vote. The Senate acquitted Trump in both cases. In Trump's second term, talk from some Democrats about impeaching the president began early. In February, Green gave a floor speech announcing he'd pursue articles of impeachment. Two months later, he introduced a single article accusing Trump of 'devolving democracy within the United States into authoritarianism' and detailed a lengthy list of grievances about Trump flouting the courts and attacking the judiciary. But by June, when Green finally called up his resolution, forcing an impeachment vote on the floor, the Texas Democrat swapped out the language of the resolution and replaced it with new language hitting Trump for failing to consult with Congress before striking Iran. Green's resolution failed on a 344-79 vote, with 128 Democrats joining all Republicans to table the measure. Among those who backed Green were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, who are both running for the Senate in Illinois. Some Democrats said the vote served only as a distraction from more pressing matters, like Republicans' megabill that was moving through Congress. But in an interview Monday night, Green said he had no regrets about forcing the impeachment vote and vowed to do it again — though he wouldn't say when or what the new articles might say. 'I can't say that he committed an impeachable offense and then not vote to impeach. I have a conscience; it's a vote of conscience. And I say to members, 'Vote your conscience,'' Green told NBC News. 'By the way, I'm going to bring articles against him again. Those were not the last.' He said he respected the views of colleagues who believe that political 'tactics supersede the Constitution.' But he felt he had no choice but to act on impeachment. 'A person who breaches the Constitution that the courts can't manage and their party won't manage, then there's but one option left,' Green added. 'And the Constitution is kind of important.' In a sign of how Democrats are struggling to find the right message on impeachment, Indiana's Andre Carson, who voted to kill the Green impeachment effort, asked to cosponsor impeachment articles one day later in a post to X. And Don Beyer (Virginia) recounted how he changed his vote from killing the Green measure to supporting it after a conversation on the House floor with a colleague. Longtime California representative Zoe Lofgren, who has participated in all four modern presidential impeachments, informed Beyer that the revised language of the resolution effectively made it a vote to restrict Trump's ability to use military force against Iran. 'This is the only chance as a Democrat to make a war powers vote,' Beyer said Lofgren told him. 'I would not have voted for it based on the original impeachment text that Al Green put in, which I thought was thin.' Some freshman lawmakers have been worried about the optics of Democrats being publicly split over impeaching Trump. They're seeking more coordination and guidance from leadership to get rank-and-file members marching in the same direction, according to one Democratic member who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity. This lawmaker, who represents a progressive district, said they are getting inundated with calls from constituents who want Democrats to fight harder. 'They aren't buying that just because we are in the minority, we can't do anything,' the lawmaker said. 'The truth is we can. And we should.' After Thanedar's impeachment push, the lawmaker said there was 'anxiety' among freshmen in particular. The lawmaker added that they'd want to see a concerted push in relevant committees that has been blessed by leadership, rather than disjointed attempts from rank-and-file members. Still, there is little Democratic leaders to do to stop these efforts. Any lawmaker is able to call up an impeachment resolution as 'privileged' and force a full vote in the House. Democratic leaders have consistently poured cold water on the rogue impeachment efforts, arguing that Republicans — in control of the House and Senate — won't hold Trump accountable. The newly minted ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, California's Robert Garcia, said in the middle of last month's fight over Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that Democrats should focus on stopping Trump's legislative agenda. 'We know that Donald Trump is corrupt. We know that we're going to have the ability and we're going to need to investigate his corruption. But at this moment, the priority has to be in stopping this bill. I think that's the focus,' Garcia told NBC News. Asked if Democrats will move to impeach Trump eventually, Garcia replied: 'He's going to have to be held accountable for his actions. At this moment, we've got to focus on stopping this massive bill.' At various times this year, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (New York) has dodged the question of whether he supports impeaching Trump. But Jeffries and his top Democratic lieutenants all voted to table the Green resolution. And speaking with NBC News recently, Jeffries deferred to Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has dismissed impeachment as 'not a plausible instrument' while in the minority. 'Impeachment, of course, rests with the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Jamie Raskin. He has been very clear that this is a moment where we have to expose the corruption and abuse of power that is taking place as a result of the extreme behaviour by the Trump administration,' Jeffries said. 'Follow the facts, apply the law, and be guided by the Constitution,' he said.
Newsweek
15-07-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
Senator: We're Already Seeing Consequences of RFK Jr's Vaccine Skepticism
As summer winds down, thousands of families across my home state of Delaware are starting to look ahead to the new school year. Parents are making their back-to-school shopping lists. Students are finishing their summer reading. But perhaps most importantly, families are checking to see what vaccines their children need to be safe and healthy come fall. Children receive over 30 vaccinations from the day they are born until they turn 17 to protect them from deadly diseases like the measles, the flu, and even COVID-19. But how do we know what vaccinations our children need? Enter the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. For more than half a century, ACIP has met multiple times a year to deliberate on the efficacy of vaccine selection for millions of Americans. This committee makes recommendations for the routine administration of vaccines for children and adults alike. These recommendations inform our broader public health system, ensuring the vaccines we need are affordable, accessible in our communities, and covered by insurance. ACIP is made up of doctors, scientists, pediatricians, and parents, often appointed following a rigorous public nomination and vetting process. They work above the political fray. There is no "D" or "R" next to any of their names—they let the science guide their work to keep our communities safe. That is, until last month, when Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, a known vaccine skeptic and conspiracy theorist, made an unprecedented, dangerous, and unilateral decision. Under the guise of trying "re-establish public confidence in vaccine science," he fired the entire committee in the middle of its members' staggered terms. He got rid of the qualified experts and replaced them with vaccine skeptics, conspiracy theorists, and scientists with little applicable experience. One member has already withdrawn due to a financial conflict. This is not how we build trust in our public health system. As a former statewide health official and member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I questioned Secretary Kennedy during his confirmation process. I met with him and considered his nomination, as I did all the other cabinet members that came in front of our committee, on the basis of his ABCs: his ability to do the job, his background, and his character. Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Democrat from Delaware, speaks at a press conference alongside other Senate Democrats outside the US Capitol on Priorities for the 119th Congress in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2025. Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Democrat from Delaware, speaks at a press conference alongside other Senate Democrats outside the US Capitol on Priorities for the 119th Congress in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2025. ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP/Getty Images As a new member of the Senate with an extensive record of bipartisanship from my time in the House, I was hoping to find common ground with Mr. Kennedy. He raised some legitimate concerns about the functionality of our health care system and the harm the food industry is causing Americans. I share some of these concerns, as do public health advocates across the country. I knew I would disagree with Mr. Kennedy's conspiratorial views on vaccines. But I was struck by the nominee's fundamental lack of knowledge about what the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) does for the American people. I felt that his lack of understanding, and frankly, lack of curiosity, about the basic responsibilities of HHS made him not only an unqualified choice to lead this critical agency, but a dangerous one. And unfortunately, we are seeing the consequences of his highly partisan confirmation. In Delaware, a place with more chickens than people, illnesses like the Avian flu are a serious concern. American communities are dealing with the biggest Measles outbreak in decades. Meanwhile, Secretary Kennedy undermines the efficacy of vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, for children and pregnant women. Now is not the time to let conspiracy theories guide our health decisions. We need leaders who understand the importance of public health and allow science to inform their decision making. I'm not alone in my critiques of Secretary Kennedy. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association recently filed a lawsuit against him, alleging his changes to the vaccine schedule violate federal law. Their suit underscores the problems I've seen with Secretary Kennedy's leadership from day one. In just six months, Secretary Kennedy has postponed ACIP meetings, closed research labs, delayed clinical trials, laid off more than 1,000 NIH officials, and ignored congressional inquiries on CDC leadership. He even went back on a promise to our committee's well-respected chairman, senator and physician Bill Cassidy (R-La.), to "maintain" the 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices "without changes." The health and safety of our communities should not hang on the whim of a political ideologue. That is why I am working on legislation to reverse Secretary Kennedy's dangerous decision to fire ACIP members, reinstate the original committee, and ensure no future secretary can fire ACIP members without cause. Parents rely on ACIP for insurance coverage for the childhood vaccines students need to attend school. Children and caregivers rely on ACIP to ensure their parents can receive shingles vaccines free of charge. Many Americans who received a COVID-19 shot or were vaccinated against Polio have ACIP to thank. Firing ACIP's members will create confusion for insurers, confusion for doctors, and confusion for patients looking to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. ACIP worked so well for so long because politics did not factor into its decisions. We must restore this standard of integrity again. If Secretary Kennedy truly wants to restore confidence in our public health system, then he should let the science speak for itself. Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Democrat, serves as junior U.S. senator from Delaware. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
NBC News
15-07-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Rogue Trump impeachment efforts divide House Democrats
WASHINGTON — House Democrats have been publicly grappling with the issue of impeaching President Donald Trump, with grassroots activists pressuring lawmakers to more aggressively confront Trump and centrist members of the party dismissing the push as futile. During a six-week stretch this year, House Democrats twice were confronted with impeachment votes — forced by their own rank-and-file members — that had zero chance of passing, given that Republicans control the chamber. In May, Democratic leaders convinced Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., to back off his impeachment push at the last minute. But the following month, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, forced a failed vote to impeach Trump, exposing stark divisions among Democrats and putting the party's vulnerable members in a difficult position ahead of next year's midterm elections. Before the 119th Congress is over, it's likely there will be other pushes to impeach Trump, who survived two such efforts during his first term, even as many Democrats grow frustrated by them. 'They're massively unhelpful, and they just fire up the base,' said one moderate House Democrat who opposed the recent impeachment efforts. A second centrist Democrat called them a 'waste of time,' and suggested that colleagues who had voted for impeachment had only done so to appease the party's base. 'Even people that voted 'no' on it, they don't really want to impeach Trump. But they have to feed the left-wing base,' said the second Democrat, who spoke anonymously to freely discuss internal party dynamics. 'They don't want to have to go home and answer questions why they didn't vote for impeachment.' That lawmaker said impeachment should only be pursued after holding a committee investigation and hearings — and that won't happen until Democrats win back the majority. 'If you respect the process here, you don't go right to an impeachment vote,' the lawmaker said. 'You go through a process, and then you have an impeachment vote. So let's go through that process.' That was the roadmap that House Democrats followed in 2019 during Trump's first impeachment, over allegations he withheld military aid to pressure Ukraine to launch an investigation into political rival Joe Biden's family. Democrats voted to launch a formal impeachment investigation, took closed-door testimony and held a series of televised hearings. The second impeachment, in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, happened in a much more haphazard way as Trump was preparing to leave office. There was no lengthy House investigation or hearings before an impeachment vote. The Senate acquitted Trump in both cases. In Trump's second term, talk from some Democrats about impeaching the president began early. In February, Green gave a floor speech announcing he'd pursue articles of impeachment. Two months later, he introduced a single article accusing Trump of 'devolving democracy within the United States into authoritarianism' and detailed a lengthy list of grievances about Trump flouting the courts and attacking the judiciary. But by June, when Green finally called up his resolution, forcing an impeachment vote on the floor, the Texas Democrat swapped out the language of the resolution and replaced it with new language hitting Trump for failing to consult with Congress before striking Iran. Green's resolution failed on a 344-79 vote, with 128 Democrats joining all Republicans to table the measure. Among those who backed Green were Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, who are both running for Senate in Illinois. Some Democrats said the vote served only as a distraction from more pressing matters, like Republicans' megabill that was moving through Congress. But in an interview Monday night, Green said he had no regrets about forcing the impeachment vote and vowed to do it again — though he wouldn't say when or what the new articles might say. 'I can't say that he committed an impeachable offense and then not vote to impeach. I have a conscience; it's a vote of conscience. And I say to members, 'Vote your conscience,'" Green told NBC News. "By the way, I'm going to bring articles against him again. Those were not the last.' He said he respected the views of colleagues who believe that political 'tactics supersede the Constitution.' But he felt he had no choice but to act on impeachment. 'A person who breaches the Constitution that the courts can't manage and their party won't manage, then there's but one option left,' Green added. 'And the Constitution is kind of important.' In a sign of how Democrats are struggling to find the right message on impeachment, Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., who voted to kill the Green impeachment effort, asked to cosponsor impeachment articles one day later in a post to X. And Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., recounted how he changed his vote from killing the Green measure to supporting it after a conversation on the House floor with a colleague. Longtime Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who has participated in all four modern presidential impeachments, informed Beyer that the revised language of the resolution effectively made it a vote to restrict Trump's ability to use military force against Iran. 'This is the only chance as a Democrat to make a war powers vote,' Beyer said Lofgren told him. 'I would not have voted for it based on the original impeachment text that Al Green put in, which I thought was thin.' Some freshman lawmakers have been worried about the optics of Democrats being publicly split over impeaching Trump. They're seeking more coordination and guidance from leadership to get rank-and-file members marching in the same direction, according to one Democratic member who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity. This lawmaker, who represents a progressive district, said they are getting inundated with calls from constituents who want Democrats to fight harder. 'They aren't buying that just because we are in the minority, we can't do anything," the lawmaker said. "The truth is we can. And we should.' After Thanedar's impeachment push, the lawmaker said there was 'anxiety' among freshmen in particular. The lawmaker added that they'd want to see a concerted push in relevant committees that has been blessed by leadership, rather than disjointed attempts from rank-and-file members. Still, there is little Democratic leaders to do to stop these efforts. Any lawmaker is able to call up an impeachment resolution as 'privileged" and force a full vote in the House. Democratic leaders have consistently poured cold water on the rogue impeachment efforts, arguing that Republicans — in control of the House and Senate — won't hold Trump accountable. The newly minted ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., said in the middle of last month's fight over Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that Democrats should focus on stopping Trump's legislative agenda. 'We know that Donald Trump is corrupt. We know that we're going to have the ability and we're going to need to investigate his corruption. But at this moment, the priority has to be in stopping this bill. I think that's the focus,' Garcia told NBC News. Asked if Democrats will move to impeach Trump eventually, Garcia replied: 'He's going to have to be held accountable for his actions. At this moment, we've got to focus on stopping this massive bill.' At various times this year, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has dodged the question of whether he supports impeaching Trump. But Jeffries and his top Democratic lieutenants all voted to table the Green resolution. And speaking with NBC News recently, Jeffries deferred to Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has dismissed impeachment as 'not a plausible instrument' while in the minority. 'Impeachment, of course, rests with the Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Jamie Raskin. He has been very clear that this is a moment where we have to expose the corruption and abuse of power that is taking place as a result of the extreme behavior by the Trump administration,' Jeffries said. 'Follow the facts, apply the law, and be guided by the Constitution,' he said.
Newsweek
03-07-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Republican Rips Key Vote on Trump Bill as 'Power Move'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Representative Keith Self of Texas ripped a procedural vote taking place on the much-debated financial package dubbed the "big, beautiful bill" by President Donald Trump Wednesday night, saying he's a "no," as more talks are vital. Newsweek reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson's office via email for comment. Why It Matters The attempted passage of Trump's fiscal initiative—the centerpiece of his legislative efforts—agonized party traditionalists and grassroots activists who have long campaigned on promises of fiscal restraint. Clashes over the bill also underscore significant fractures within the Republican Party as it aims to hold control of Congress amid mounting pressure from both establishment leaders and populist outsiders. The outcome of the final House vote on the bill will ultimately determine whether Trump's comprehensive policy package—including tax cuts, border security initiatives, and major spending realignments—becomes law, shaping his legacy and affecting millions of Americans. GOP Representative Keith Self of Texas is pictured as the House votes on a speaker during the first day of the 119th Congress, in the U.S. Capitol on January 3 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by... GOP Representative Keith Self of Texas is pictured as the House votes on a speaker during the first day of the 119th Congress, in the U.S. Capitol on January 3 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) More What To Know According to PBS NewsHour Correspondent Lisa Desjardins on X, formerly Twitter, Self said while speaking to Newsmax that the procedural vote late Wednesday night is a "power move," adding its "a pressure move," as lawmakers "are still in the middle" of critical negotiations and compromise. Self posted on X Wednesday night during the procedural vote, writing, "I came to Washington to help rein in our national debt. In negotiations with House leadership, commitments were made to ensure the One Big Beautiful Bill would include key provisions, such as: - Matching every $1 of tax cuts with $1 of spending cuts. - Terminating Biden's Green New Scam. - Prohibiting taxpayer-funded experimental gender transition procedures." The Texas lawmaker added, "Senate broke the House framework, and then they stomped all over it. Now, House leadership wants to cram this broken bill down our throats by rushing it to the floor while in the middle of discussions, completely disregarding their promises." "The only way of making this right is by leadership adhering to their commitments and restoring, at a minimum, these three important issues from the House version," Self added. "While honoring one's commitment may be a rare commodity in Washington, each member of Congress is obligated to return home and explain their actions to the constituents they serve." Concluding, Self said, "Ultimately, this is an issue of morality. Abiding by our word is the only thing we have; therefore, as the bill currently stands, I voted against the rule. We have an incredibly rare opportunity to extend President Trump's tax cuts, begin restoring fiscal sanity by reducing spending to pre-COVID numbers and truly leave our country better than we found it." As House margins are razor thin, Republicans can only afford to lose three votes if all Democrats vote no, as expected. NBC News reports that lawmakers can switch their votes up until the last moment. With the GOP's narrow majority and key defections among both fiscal conservatives and moderates, the bill's fate reflects broader fractures inside the party over fiscal strategy and social spending. As the July Fourth self-imposed deadline by Trump looms, failure to pass the legislation could stall the president's second-term agenda and fuel ongoing leadership debates within the party. What People Are Saying Trump posted to Truth Social on Wednesday: "It looks like the House is ready to vote tonight. We had GREAT conversations all day, and the Republican House Majority is UNITED, for the Good of our Country, delivering the Biggest Tax Cuts in History and MASSIVE Growth. Let's go Republicans, and everyone else - MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Johnson, on X before the key vote: "President Trump KEPT HIS PROMISE to secure the border. Now Congress MUST do its part. The only way we keep the border secure and the American people safe is by passing the One Big Beautiful Bill. @HouseGOP, time to get it done." Vice President JD Vance posted to X on Wednesday: "The Big Beautiful Bill gives the president the resources and the power to undo the Biden border invasion. It must pass." What Happens Next The bill's fate remains uncertain Wednesday night, as the House is divided on the legislation. Should the bill pass, it would mark a major victory for Trump's policy agenda; if it fails, internal party strife and questions over leadership authority are likely to intensify, analysts speculate. If the procedural vote passes, Republicans can then debate the bill and bring it to the floor for a final vote.
