Latest news with #Democrats'
Boston Globe
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Senate rejects effort to restrain Trump on Iran as GOP backs his strikes on nuclear sites
Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,' said Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn. 'But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.' Advertisement Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress' first briefings taking place Thursday. 'The idea is this: We shouldn't send our sons and daughters into war unless there's a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,' Kaine said in a Thursday interview with The Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn't aimed at restricting the president's ability to defend against a threat, but that 'if it's offense, let's really make sure we're making the right decision.' Advertisement In a statement following Friday's vote, Kaine said he was 'disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress' should be a part of a decision to go to war. Democrats' argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.' Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday's vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that 'despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.' 'It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran's nuclear aspirations,' said Paul. Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he's done so at a time when he's often bristling at the nation's checks and balances. Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.' But following classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat truly was. 'There was no imminent threat to the United States,' said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday's classified briefings. Advertisement 'There's always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,' Himes said. Despite Democratic skepticism, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump's decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they're working to pass his major legislative package. Kaine proposed a similar resolution in 2020 aimed at limiting Trump's authority to launch military operations against Iran. Among the eight Republicans who joined Democrats in approving the resolution was Indiana Sen. Todd Young. After Thursday's classified briefing for the Senate, Young said he was 'confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat' and that, given Trump's stated goal of no further escalation, 'I do not believe this resolution is necessary at this time.' 'Should the Administration's posture change or events dictate the consideration of additional American military action, Congress should be consulted so we can best support those efforts and weigh in on behalf of our constituents,' Young said in a statement. Trump has said that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is now in place. But he and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have verbally sparred in recent days, with the ayatollah warning the U.S. not to launch future strikes on Iran. White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled. ___ Associated Press reporter Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.
Politico
14 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
Breaking up with Big Oil is hard to do
IT'S COMPLICATED: California still wants to break up with Big Oil — but it needs a ride first. California Energy Commission Vice Chair Siva Gunda outlined his much-anticipated plan on Friday to keep gas prices from spiking as the state weans itself off of oil. TLDR: Support in-state crude oil production, boost imports of refined oil — and pause a profit cap on refineries passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2023. Newsom had already previewed the pivot when he asked Gunda to redouble efforts to keep in-state refineries operating profitably in April after two of them announced plans to close amid a long-term decline in demand. The recommendations on Friday not only mark a softening of the state's fight against the oil and gas industry, but also a recognition that attacks from Republicans on gas prices are sticking. 'The gist is, 'We get it,'' Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot told reporters Friday. California's climate officials are now on the tightest of political tightropes. For example, Gunda recommended the Legislature waive some environmental review rules to streamline further oil extraction from oilfields in Kern County — while also expanding limitations on new offshore oil and gas development and codifying a ban on well stimulation treatments. Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board stuck by its hot-button emissions trading program for transportation fuels, announcing Friday that their changes to the low-carbon fuel standard will take effect early next week despite fears that tightening the restrictions on the carbon intensity of fuels could cause a spike in gas prices. Senate Democrats are already girding for a fight with the agency. They introduced a bill backed by Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire on Tuesday to freeze credit prices that encourage the switch to electricity, hydrogen and other non-fossil fuels, cutting the legs out from under the program. For a deeper dive into the LCFS fight, read our exclusive Q&A with CARB Chair Liane Randolph below. — CvK, AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! CARB'S COUNTER: Randolph isn't taking Senate Democrats' attempt to weaken the LCFS quietly. The state's top air quality official pushed back against the bill, SB 237, in an interview Friday, saying the proposal 'is just irresponsible' after the Trump administration already revoked the state's power to enforce its electric car and heavy-duty truck mandates. POLITICO spoke with Randolph about the heated LCFS debate. Read the full interview on POLITICO Pro for her thoughts on California's climate disclosure law and what's next for discussions with automakers. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. What are you concerned about as the news of the LCFS changes taking effect becomes public, and what are you trying to get ahead of? It's super important to be proactive, to remind people about the importance of this program. It is designed to provide a cost-effective path to support the transition to lower-carbon fuels and to zero-ignition infrastructure that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, right? And so in all of this conversation about cost, I don't want people to forget about the incredible benefits of the program and the fact that it's generated $4 billion in annual private sector investment in the clean transportation sector. It attracts dollars. It attracts investment in the state. It delivers, under our estimate, $12 billion in health-related savings, and California businesses will see increased revenue of $6 to $8 billion from LCFS credit generation sales through the life of the program. It's really important to emphasize that this program has clear economic benefits. This news is coming against the backdrop of SB 237, a new bill that would weaken the LCFS program. Do you regret at all how the rulemaking was done and the initial estimate that LCFS would raise gas prices up to 47 cents? Has that put you in the crosshairs of lawmakers? The LCFS rulemaking was an incredibly robust process. There were multiple workshops, tons of stakeholder engagement, two public hearings in front of the board. So the idea that there was not a robust public discussion about all the pros and cons of all of the complexities of the program is just inaccurate. And we had multiple briefings with legislative staff, outreach from members that we responded to. So it was an absolutely robust public process. The second thing I'll say is that in this era, when the federal administration is literally taking away every tool that they can think of, the idea that we as a state would attempt to cripple programs that have been effective, that have resulted in economic development and better air quality, cleaner fuels, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, is just irresponsible. SB 237 is endorsed by Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire. How seriously do you take it, have you talked to the governor about this, and what could result from a proposal like this even if it doesn't move forward? It is a proposal that has the potential to set California back. And I think that it's really important for our elected leaders to be thinking about all the different aspects of how we achieve our air quality and climate goals, and to recognize that we as Californians really should control our own destiny as much as we possibly can. — AN SEE YA, CEQA: Newsom is asking lawmakers to approve an overhaul of one of California's landmark environmental laws before he signs off on this year's budget. A trailer bill introduced Friday carves out sweeping exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act, which mandates environmental reviews of construction and has drawn the ire of pro-building and Republican voices accusing it of slowing down key projects. Under the bill, environmental review of housing projects would be limited, and many wildfire mitigation projects, including fuel breaks near homes and vegetation thinning near evacuation routes, would no longer need to be reviewed. Improvements to certain community water systems as well as some construction on the state's high-speed rail project would also be exempted. The exemptions got immediate praise from the California State Association of Counties on Friday. 'No longer will CEQA be leveraged to stall critical county wildfire, water and housing projects,' said CSAC President and Inyo County Supervisor Jeff Griffiths. They were panned, however, by environmental groups. 'The trailer bill 131 is the worst rollback of environmental and public health protections that we've seen in decades,' said Matthew Baker, the policy director at the Planning and Conservation League, in a press conference Friday. The bill is expected to be approved Monday in the statehouse and then signed into law by the governor. — CvK BYE BYE, LOCOMOTIVES: CARB officially repealed its rule to phase out diesel locomotives Thursday night. Board members voted unanimously to revoke the in-use locomotive rule, six months after the agency announced that it had withdrawn the emissions standard from consideration for an EPA waiver, once it became clear approval wouldn't happen before former President Joe Biden left office. The rule, approved in April 2023, was projected to reduce 386,300 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides by 2050, making it CARB's most impactful vehicle emissions standard. The loss compounds the blow from car and truck rules being axed, and means regions like Southern California and the Central Valley are all but guaranteed to be out of compliance and face the threat of federal sanctions. — AN BILLABLE HOURS: A Sacramento County Superior Court judge gave Attorney General Rob Bonta the green light late Thursday to keep his big climate lawsuit against oil and gas companies in the hands of an outside firm, Lesley Clark of POLITICO's E&E News reports. The decision to outsource the headline-grabbing lawsuit to the San Francisco law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein got Bonta in a tussle with his own employees. Their union, the California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment sued over the decision, arguing in-house lawyers were capable of handling the complex work themselves. But Judge Shelleyanne Chang wrote in her preliminary ruling that there was not enough evidence of that and that hiring an outside firm was well within state law. As Lesley has previously reported, the state's contract with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein lawyers shows its lawyers billing up to $1,241 an hour; lawyers with another outside firm, Sher Edling, hired to help with the work are making up to $625 an hour. — CvK — A California appeals court struck down one of the state's largest planned communities for not analyzing its greenhouse gas emissions impacts enough. — The San Diego region's water wholesaler approved a rate hike of 8 percent amid declining demand and high fixed costs. — Western states have had relatively cool temperatures this summer, but a national heat surge is coming.
New York Post
16 hours ago
- Business
- New York Post
How the Big Beautiful Bill will lower energy costs, shore up the electric grid — and unleash American prosperity
How much would you pay for an Uber if you didn't know when it would pick you up or where it was going to drop you off? Probably not much. Yet this is the same effect that variable generation sources like wind and solar have on our power grids. Advertisement You never know if these energy sources will actually be able to produce electricity when you need it — because you don't know if the sun will be shining or the wind blowing. Even so, the federal government has subsidized these sources for decades, resulting in higher electricity prices and a less stable grid. President Donald Trump knows what to do: Eliminate green tax credits from the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act, including those for wind and solar power. Advertisement The One Big Beautiful Bill seeks to do that: Along with other proposals, like canceling billions in Biden Green New Deal money and making much-needed investments in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it aims to set an aggressive end date for these subsidies and build on the president's push for affordable, abundant, and secure energy for the nation. The House bill begins phasing out these tax credits within three years, saving hundreds of billions for American taxpayers. As secretary of energy — and someone who's devoted his life to advancing energy innovation to better human lives — I, too, know how these Green New Deal subsidies are fleecing Americans. Wind and solar subsidies have been particularly wasteful and counterproductive. Advertisement One example: The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit was first introduced in 1992, when wind energy was a nascent industry. This tax credit, originally set to phase out in 1999, was sold on a promise of low-cost energy with fewer tradeoffs. Since 1999, the REPTC has been extended a whopping 12 times, yet consumers continue to pay more on average for their home electric bills than in 1992, even after adjusting for inflation. Plus, today, more than 75% of US electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear and coal — and they supply it 24/7, independent of the weather. Climate change activists are predictably up in arms over efforts to end the subsidies. But like Uber rides, energy generation is pointless if it flunks the test of reliable delivery. Advertisement At 8 p.m. on Inauguration Day, amid bitter cold across much of the Eastern seaboard, we reached peak demand for electricity in the mid-Atlantic region. At that point in time, PJM Interconnection, which supplies the Mid-Atlantic United States, got approximately 44% of its power from coal, 24% from natural gas, 25% from nuclear, 3% from oil, 3% from wind, 1% from hydro and 0% from solar. Think about that: When Americans most needed dependable power to heat their homes and businesses to stay alive, solar and wind were non-factors. Our homes, hospitals and businesses only continued to operate because there was enough reliable, baseload energy from natural gas, coal and nuclear available to meet demand. How valuable is a teammate who occasionally shows up for practice but is never there at game time? And the more we load our grid with intermittent generation, the worse the grid performs during times of maximum stress and demand. Subsidies are meant to drive prices down and boost supply. But subsidizing wind and solar has done exactly the opposite. These sources force grid operators to maintain two separate systems — one for legacy power and another for renewable sources. Advertisement When wind and solar come online, legacy resources must be scaled back. But it's difficult to store electricity from wind and solar. So when wind and solar aren't available at times of peak demand, reliable baseload sources must scale up. Bottom line: higher costs. Indeed, wind and solar subsidies not only cost taxpayers but also force providers to add more dispatchable resources to the grid, at their expense. These costs are then passed on to ratepayers. Advertisement In other words, more wind and solar brings us the worst of two worlds: less reliable energy delivery and higher electric bills. It's time to stop subsidizing such insanity in perpetuity. If sources are truly economically viable, let's allow them to stand on their own, and stop forcing Americans to pick up the tab if they're not. Since Day 1, President Trump has been focused on lowering energy costs and promoting affordable, reliable and secure energy sources. Advertisement The One Big Beautiful Bill brings us one step closer to cementing this legacy — and unleashing economic prosperity for the American people. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright is a self-described energy nerd turned entrepreneur. He's spent his entire career in the energy industry, working in oil and gas, nuclear, solar and geothermal.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mamdani's defeat of Cuomo offers Democrats a path out of the wilderness
The party was on its knees. It failed to beat Donald Trump, a twice impeached convicted felon, and lost both chambers of Congress. Since November, Democrats have been searching for a path out of the wilderness. On Tuesday, they found one. But instead of celebrating Zohran Mamdani's apparent victory in the New York mayoral primary election, the first major Democratic contest since Trump's win, many in the party establishment went into panic mode. Mamdani, 33, a self-described democratic socialist who would be the first Muslim mayor of America's biggest city, represents a unique threat to the entitled elites, gerontocrats and consultants who have helped take Democrats' approval rating to a record low of 29%. His defeat of Andrew Cuomo, a 67-year-old from a political dynasty vying to come back from a sexual harassment scandal, could hardly have been better scripted as a pivot point for Democrats who ruined their brand by closing ranks to cover up concerns over former president Joe Biden's decline. Cuomo, bankrolled by corporate donors and endorsed by former president Bill Clinton and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, personified the twitching tail of a dying animal. Mamdani, an aspiring rapper turned state politician backed by congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a fellow New Yorker, represented a dare to imagine what a post-Trump future might look like. 'What's happening in NYC is a blaringly loud message to those in the Dem establishment who still cling to old politics, recite focus-grouped talking points, and are too afraid to say what needs to be said,' tweeted Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to former president Barack Obama. It was a campaign that triangulated ground game, digital style and policy substance. Mamdani was a shoe leather candidate who put himself all over the city, talked to countless voters, projected optimism without sounding preachy and had thousands of volunteers knocking on doors multiple times. He also learned from Ocasio-Cortez's mastery of the attention economy. Where other Democrats seem contrived and cringy on social media, Mamdani and Ocasio-Cortez are of a generation that swims naturally in such waters, proving that you cannot fake authenticity. Born in Uganda to a family of Indian descent, he is a cosmopolitan and charismatic New Yorker. In November, a week after Trump's victory, he went to Queens and the Bronx with a microphone and interviewed working class New Yorkers about why they voted for Trump or did not vote at all. A video of the exchanges has 2.7m views on the X social media platform. On New Year's Day, dressed in full suit and tie save for bare feet, he ran into freezing waters off Coney Island then strolled along the beach talking policy and tweeted some pleasingly bad puns: 'I'm freezing … your rent as the next mayor of New York City. Let's plunge into the details.' For all Democrats' angst over messaging, none of it matters if the policies fail to resonate. The Democratic party has come to be seen as the party of the college-educated elites, something that Trump, with no sense of self-irony as a millionaire New Yorker, has exploited to maximum effect with blue-collar voters. But Mamdani evidently struck a chord in a city feeling the pinch of the affordability crisis. The average Manhattan rent now stands at $5,000 a month. His proposals include freezing rent for many New Yorkers, free bus service and universal childcare paid for by new taxes on the rich. When Trump identified some of the frustrations and offered fake populism, he was twice rewarded with the White House. When Mamdani offers solutions that would be regarded as mainstream in many European countries, he is demonised as an extremist. On Wednesday, the New York Times newspaper characterised him as 'running on a far-left agenda' while the front page of Rupert Murdoch's New York Post declared: 'NYC SOS. Who will save city after radical socialist batters Cuomo in Dem mayoral primary?' Mamdani showed the value of fearlessness. A staunch supporter of Palestinian rights, he has called Israel's actions in Gaza a 'genocide', joined a hunger strike outside the White House calling for a ceasefire and championed the cause of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist at Columbia University who spent more than three months in detention on the orders of a federal judge. Cuomo and his allies' efforts to portray Mamdani as antisemitic fell flat. There is a lesson for Democrats who denied a Palestinian American a speaking slot at their national convention last year and saw Kamala Harris lose to Trump in the Arab-majority suburb of Dearborn in Michigan, potentially costing her the crucial swing state of Michigan. Expect the Democratic establishment to fight back, just as Hillary Clinton did against senator Bernie Sanders's insurgent candidacy in 2016 (Sanders endorsed Mamdani). They fear the loss of the control they have long enjoyed. They also fear that Republicans and rightwing media will cast Mamdani, Ocasio-Cortez and the rest as radical Marxists, as sure to lose elections as Britain's Jeremy Corbyn. Matt Bennett, a cofounder of the centrist thinktank Third Way, wrote on social media that it is 'dangerous to believe a NYC Dem primary offers a roadmap for winning' in swing or conservative places and urged Democrats to follow moderates, 'not the siren call' of socialism. He added: 'Mamdani diagnosed the right problem: the affordability crisis facing the working class. But he has the wrong solutions: his ideas can't work and would make matters worse.' There will certainly be much debate over whether New York City, a Democratic stronghold with many distinct characteristics, is a useful template for candidates in cities, towns and rural areas the length and breadth of the country. 'As New York goes, so goes the nation,' is not really a thing. Even so, after six months of anguished soul searching, Democrats now have one answer. Some don't like it. Mamdani – likely to be the favourite in November's general election for mayor – signifies a generational change and rebuke to a party establishment grown complacent and hypocritical in its deference to figures such as the Clintons, Biden and Cuomo despite their obvious flaws. The odds of Ocasio-Cortez, currently 35, running for and winning the Democratic nomination in 2028 just got shorter. It is a leap of political imagination for America that progressives would savour – but so, too, would the Republican election machine.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democratic senator sounds alarm on party's failures: ‘We don't act as a team'
A Democratic senator has sounded the alarm about her own party's failings, urging colleagues to 'slaughter some sacred cows' if they want to combat Donald Trump and win back power. Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan castigated fellow Democrats for losing their 'alpha energy' and 'bravado', being 'scared' to enforce immigration rules, taking an 'elitist' approach to the climate crisis and having 'a bias towards navel gazing'. She painted a bleak picture of a leaderless party pulling in different directions. 'Democrats are very disparate,' Slotkin told an audience at the Center for American Progress thinktank in Washington DC. 'We're like a solar system with no sun. We got a lot of planets, some with their own gravitational pull, we've got a lot of stars but there's not enough cohering us.' Related: Ro Khanna calls on Democrats to reclaim identity as 'the anti-war party' The senator added: 'You can't retake the town of Mosul without a plan but then also a coordination effort by all parties to specialise and do things. Everyone has a different role to play … My concern is that we don't act as a team and, when we don't work as a team, we turn our guns on each other and it's so, so, so fruitless.' Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who served three tours in Iraq, is a first-term senator widely regarded as a rising star in the party. In March, she delivered the Democrats' rebuttal to Trump's joint congressional address. The 48-year-old used her speech on Thursday to unveil an 'economic war plan', proposing that the government addresses problems such as rising costs and declining trust in institutions rather than exacerbating them. The plan focuses on five areas: creating well-paying jobs, modernising education to prepare for future economies, making housing affordable through increased construction, pursuing an 'all-of-the-above' energy strategy to lower costs, and reforming a broken healthcare system by introducing a public option and tackling drug pricing. 'As a CIA officer and Pentagon official by training, I believe that the single, greatest security threat to the United States is not coming from abroad,' she said. 'It's the shrinking middle class here at home.' When people cannot provide for their children as they themselves were provided for, she argued, it breeds 'anger and suspicion among Americans'. This frustration can be unifying for Democrats including 'moderates, progressives and everything in between'. Slotkin argued that government failed to uphold its 'Great American Deal' by not ruthlessly expanding the middle class, instead being swayed by special interests and political expediency. She proposed rebuilding systems around jobs, education, housing, energy and healthcare rather than simply 'nibbling at the margins'. She also advocated for political reforms, such as banning corporate political action committee donations and congressional stock trading, to regain public trust and refocus politicians on the needs of the middle class. The senator urged Democrats to take a pragmatic approach willing to 'slaughter some sacred cows' to achieve results. She called on her colleagues to distinguish between small businesses and multinational corporations and avoid 'vilifying success'. Slotkin, who hails from a border state, said there must be acknowledgment that the immigration system is broken. 'Both parties have been a mess on this issue. Republicans say border security should substitute for an immigration policy and are rounding up people in a way that goes against American values. 'Democrats are scared to impose real rules. So let me slaughter another sacred cow. We need to move past the talking point on comprehensive immigration reform … We need big, bold change to fix a broken system but at this point that can be one bill or spread across five bills. I will work with any adults I can find who are actually interested in making some kind of progress on immigration.' On education, Slotkin called for mobile phones to be banned from every K-12 classroom in the US and advocated for investment in certification programmes, community colleges, trade schools and apprenticeships as well as a radical overhaul of federal workforce training programmes. 'Killing another sacred cow: in America you don't have to go to college to be successful … Making a living using your hands is a worthy path. Some Democrats give that lip service but it's time to put our money where our mouth is.' She called for an 'all-of-the-above energy plan', including natural gas, nuclear, batteries, renewables and new technologies, rejecting the 'elitist' climate change approaches of some fellow Democrats that create 'purity tests'. Slotkin represents swing state Michigan, which Democrat Kamala Harris narrowly lost to Trump in last year's presidential election. She was speaking two days after the progressive candidate Zohran Mamdani stunned the Democratic establishment by beating the moderate Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral primary. Asked for her reaction, Slotkin replied: 'The message that came across loud and clear to me was number one, people just like in November are still really focused on costs and the economy and their own kitchen table math. And they're looking for a new generation of leadership. Those were to me the two big takeaways. 'That's why, again, it reinforces for me we may disagree on some key issues but understanding that people are concerned about their family budget – that is a unifying thing for our coalition. The message, at least for me, was clear.' She rejected the common observation that Trump supporters were voting against their own interests. 'Their interest was in believing that someone was going to do something different and, while I don't believe Donald Trump for one second on what he's been selling, he at least was offering something different, and we need to hear that.'
