Latest from Politico
Politico
6 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
Senate Republicans release updated text for most of their megabill
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' is in tatters. President Donald Trump still wants it on his desk by July 4. Here's everything that will have to go right to make that happen: GOP senators and staff now believe Saturday is the earliest voting will start on the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged Thursday that parliamentarian rulings forcing Republicans to rewrite key provisions of the bill are throwing his timeline into chaos. A Saturday vote would assume no more major procedural issues, but that is not assured: Republicans could run into trouble with their use of current policy baseline, the accounting tactic they want to use to zero out the cost of tax-cut extensions. Other adverse recommendations from Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough could force additional redrafts of Republicans' tax plans. Even if Republicans resolve every outstanding issue with the parliamentarian in the next 24 hours, Thune needs to firm up his whip count. The cap on state provider taxes remains among the thorniest issues, with senators threatening to block debate on the megabill until the Medicaid financing issue is resolved. If the Senate does vote Saturday to proceed, expect Democrats to use the bulk of their 10 hours of debate time, while Republicans forfeit most of theirs. Then comes the main event — vote-a-rama — which would set up likely final passage for sometime Sunday. That starts the timer for the House. GOP leaders there have pledged to give members 48 hours' notice of a vote — and they have already advised the earliest that voting could happen is Monday evening. Republicans will have to adopt a rule before moving to debate and final passage. But the House's timeline depends wholly on what condition the megabill is in when it arrives from the Senate. Groups of House Republicans are already drawing red lines on matters ranging from SALT to clean-energy tax credits to public land sales. The hope is that the Senate will take care of those concerns in one final 'wraparound' amendment at the end of vote-a-rama. If they don't, House GOP leaders are adamant that there will need to be changes — likely pushing the timeline deep into July, or perhaps beyond. For one, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday the Senate's slower phase-out of clean-energy tax credits 'will need to be reversed,' or else. 'If there are major modifications that we cannot accept, then we would go back to the drawing board, fix some of that and send it back over,' Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday. 'So we should avoid that process, if possible.' What else we're watching: — Senate war powers vote: Senators are expected to take an initial vote at 6 p.m. on Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) resolution that would bar the president from taking further military action in Iran without congressional approval. Kaine believes Republicans will support the measure but won't say who or how many. — House Iran briefing: House members will receive a briefing on the Iran conflict from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Gen. Dan Caine and CIA Director John Ratcliffe in the CVC auditorium at 9 a.m. This comes as some House lawmakers are mulling two competing war powers resolutions, which Johnson could attempt to quash in advance using a rule.
Politico
6 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
Senate Judiciary's updated megabill text omits provision limiting judicial powers
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' is in tatters. President Donald Trump still wants it on his desk by July 4. Here's everything that will have to go right to make that happen: GOP senators and staff now believe Saturday is the earliest voting will start on the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged Thursday that parliamentarian rulings forcing Republicans to rewrite key provisions of the bill are throwing his timeline into chaos. A Saturday vote would assume no more major procedural issues, but that is not assured: Republicans could run into trouble with their use of current policy baseline, the accounting tactic they want to use to zero out the cost of tax-cut extensions. Other adverse recommendations from Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough could force additional redrafts of Republicans' tax plans. Even if Republicans resolve every outstanding issue with the parliamentarian in the next 24 hours, Thune needs to firm up his whip count. The cap on state provider taxes remains among the thorniest issues, with senators threatening to block debate on the megabill until the Medicaid financing issue is resolved. If the Senate does vote Saturday to proceed, expect Democrats to use the bulk of their 10 hours of debate time, while Republicans forfeit most of theirs. Then comes the main event — vote-a-rama — which would set up likely final passage for sometime Sunday. That starts the timer for the House. GOP leaders there have pledged to give members 48 hours' notice of a vote — and they have already advised the earliest that voting could happen is Monday evening. Republicans will have to adopt a rule before moving to debate and final passage. But the House's timeline depends wholly on what condition the megabill is in when it arrives from the Senate. Groups of House Republicans are already drawing red lines on matters ranging from SALT to clean-energy tax credits to public land sales. The hope is that the Senate will take care of those concerns in one final 'wraparound' amendment at the end of vote-a-rama. If they don't, House GOP leaders are adamant that there will need to be changes — likely pushing the timeline deep into July, or perhaps beyond. For one, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday the Senate's slower phase-out of clean-energy tax credits 'will need to be reversed,' or else. 'If there are major modifications that we cannot accept, then we would go back to the drawing board, fix some of that and send it back over,' Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday. 'So we should avoid that process, if possible.' What else we're watching: — Senate war powers vote: Senators are expected to take an initial vote at 6 p.m. on Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) resolution that would bar the president from taking further military action in Iran without congressional approval. Kaine believes Republicans will support the measure but won't say who or how many. — House Iran briefing: House members will receive a briefing on the Iran conflict from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Gen. Dan Caine and CIA Director John Ratcliffe in the CVC auditorium at 9 a.m. This comes as some House lawmakers are mulling two competing war powers resolutions, which Johnson could attempt to quash in advance using a rule.
Politico
7 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
Trump pushes Thune to crack down on wind and solar in megabill
President Donald Trump is urging Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on tax credits for wind and solar energy as part of the GOP megabill, siding with House conservatives who want to phase out those credits more quickly, according to three people familiar with the negotiations. The late-stage effort has involved direct conversations between Trump and Thune over the past two days. The intervention from Trump centers around a technical provision that could determine whether hundreds of planned projects are able to qualify for the wind and solar incentives, according to the people granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the conversations. The president's involvement has emerged as a complicating factor as Republicans aim to start voting on the megabill as soon as Saturday. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a close Trump ally, confirmed that Trump is directly involved in the push to further temper the Inflation Reduction Act credits. 'I talked to POTUS about it this morning and he certainly wants the renewables out ASAP,' Cramer said Friday. The approach pushed by Trump would match restrictive language in the House-passed reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, that would determine eligibility for wind and solar investment and production tax credits based on when those projects enter into service. It's a departure from Senate Finance Committee language backed by moderates allowing projects to receive credits based on when they begin construction. It's unclear whether Thune plans to include the so-called 'placed in service' standard in the final bill text. Doing so would put moderate senators who have pushed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives in a major bind, forcing them to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects, job losses and higher electricity prices in their states. Thune's office and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday. Trump's new push follows his Truth Social post last weekend declaring, 'I HATE 'GREEN TAX CREDITS' IN THE GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.' Renewable energy industry officials and advocates argue that a 'placed in service' requirement is difficult for energy project developers because their timelines could be derailed by permitting delays, snags in connecting projects to the grid and other factors outside their control. Such a requirement would functionally end the credits for many planned projects, they say. Reverting to more restrictive placed in service language would likely see pushback from moderate senators such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who said Thursday that such a move would be 'disastrous in my state.' Another moderate who has pushed back on IRA rollbacks, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), declined to say Friday night whether he had heard about a decision on placed in service language, but called the Senate Finance Committee's approach 'a more rational way of doing it.' 'There are lawsuits, regulatory hurdles and other things that would make it virtually impossible to get [projects] in service' even if they are essentially complete and would otherwise qualify, Tillis said. Some Senate conservatives have backed the change, which they said will help keep Republicans' campaign promise to end the Inflation Reduction Act subsidies. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said earlier this week 'there is a strong commitment to end the Green New Deal subsidies by the end of President Trump's term' — an objective, he said, 'that we're working hard to accomplish.' The effort has been supported by outside conservative voices in recent days, including Alex Epstein, a vocal opponent of wind and solar subsidies who has met with Senate Republicans in recent weeks. Epstein said Friday night that Trump is 'aware that the Senate had watered down in some significant way what the House did.' But he said moving to a placed in service standard is not a done deal and he is 'not letting up myself until I see a law with this in it.' Leading Trump officials like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who also chairs the National Energy Dominance Council, and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, have also repeatedly criticized wind and solar energy, arguing those intermittent resources are unreliable and overly reliant on tax subsidies. In a post to X Friday night, Burgum wrote that Trump 'promised to reverse the Biden administration's disastrous energy policies, and the One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on this promise by ending the Green New Scam and investing in reliable, affordable baseload power!'
Politico
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Justices' nerves fray in Supreme Court's final stretch
The Supreme Court's nine justices often like to tout their camaraderie, hoping to dispel public perceptions that they are locked into warring ideological camps. But the final rulings of the current term — issued from the bench during a tense 90-minute court session Friday — revealed some acrimonious, even acidic, exchanges. Most of the rhetorical clashes pitted the court's conservative and liberal wings against each other in politically polarized cases. But not all of the spats fell squarely along ideological lines. On the whole, they paint a picture of nine people who are deeply divided over the law and the role of the courts — and who also may just not like each other very much. The most acerbic feud Friday came in the biggest ruling of the year: the justices' 6-3 decision granting the Trump administration's bid to rein in the power of individual district court judges to block federal government policies nationwide. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court's entire conservative supermajority, responded sharply to a pair of dissents, one written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. But Barrett reserved her most pointed barbs for Jackson. Barrett, a Trump appointee and the second-most-junior justice, accused Jackson, a Biden appointee and the court's most junior member, of mounting 'a startling line of attack' not 'tethered … to any doctrine whatsoever.' According to Barrett, Jackson was promoting 'a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush,' and she was skipping over legal issues she considers 'boring.' 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' wrote Barrett. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.' Well, maybe not 'only' that. While insisting she wouldn't 'dwell' on Jackson's arguments, Barrett wound up devoting nearly 900 words to them, capping the passage off with another zinger suggesting hypocrisy on Jackson's part. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,'' Barrett wrote. 'That goes for judges too.' For her part, Jackson accused Barrett and the other conservatives of an obsession with 'impotent English tribunals' and of blessing a 'zone of lawlessness.' 'What the majority has done is allow the Executive to nullify the statutory and constitutional rights of the uncounseled, the underresourced, and the unwary, by prohibiting the lower courts from ordering the Executive to follow the law across the board,' Jackson declared. Although 42 percent of the court's opinions this term were unanimous, this week's decisions continued the pattern of liberals often finding themselves on the losing end of 6-3 rulings in the hardest-fought and most impactful cases. So, perhaps it's no surprise that the liberal justices are the ones to often paint the court's decisions in grave, even apocalyptic, terms. The court's 6-3 decision that public-school parents must be allowed to pull their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ-themed books produced a fiery dissent from Sotomayor. She predicted a 'nightmare' for school as parents choose to pull their kids out of lessons they disapprove of on topics ranging from evolution to the role of women in society to vaccines. The ensuing 'chaos' and self-censorship by schools threatens to end American public education as we know it, she said. 'Today's ruling threatens the very essence of public education,' Sotomayor wrote. 'The reverberations of the Court's error will be felt, I fear, for generations.' While the liberal justices more often found themselves on the losing side than the conservatives, some members of the court's right flank also found occasion to voice grave concerns about select rulings. Consider a decision issued Friday involving an FCC fund that supports broadband access in rural areas. It's not exactly a hot culture-war issue. And a mixed coalition of three conservatives and three liberals joined together to uphold the fund. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, animated by the case's implications for the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies, filed a lengthy dissent that accused the majority of embarking on a judicial 'misadventure' and deploying 'ludicrously hypothetical' reasoning. The majority, he wrote, 'defies the Constitution's command' that power be divided among the branches. A day earlier, Gorsuch had exchanged sharp words with Jackson — but this time, he was in the majority. Jackson, in an opinion joined by the court's other two liberals, suggested the conservative majority's decision allowing South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program there amounted to a continuation of the long campaign by racists and segregationists in the South to resist federal civil rights laws enacted in the wake of the Civil War. 'A century and a half later, the project of stymying one of the country's great civil rights laws continues,' Jackson wrote. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, dismissed the inflammatory claim out of hand, calling it 'extravagant.' Jackson has also used stark language in dissents from rulings on the court's emergency docket. In April, she predicted 'devastation' from the Trump administration suspension of education grants and called the court's decision to allow the cuts to proceed 'in equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate.' One of the major surprises Friday was the court's decision to pass up issuing any opinion in the term's big redistricting case. It involved the Louisiana legislature's creation of a second majority-Black congressional district after courts ordered the legislature to do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Although the justices heard the case in March, they ordered that the case be reargued, likely this fall. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing alone, scolded his colleagues for copping out despite a full round of legal briefing and 80 minutes of oral arguments on the issue. 'The Court today punts without explanation,' Thomas complained. The way to resolve the Louisiana case 'should be straightforward,' the court's longest-serving justice said. Then he stepped up his rhetoric another notch, declaring that the court had not only failed to explain its action but that it defied any logic whatsoever. 'The Court … inexplicably schedules these cases for reargument,' Thomas griped. The consternation displayed by the justices this week came as one of their former colleagues, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, issued an impassioned warning that 'hostile, fractious discourse' was tearing at the fabric of American democracy. To be sure, there are no outward signs the acrimony at the high court has reached the levels it did in 2022, following POLITICO's publication of a draft of the court's not-yet-released opinion overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said then that trust at the court was 'gone forever.' And after that bombshell ruling was officially published, Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of making political decisions. The Obama appointee said only 'time will tell' if the justices could again find 'common ground.' While the justices' disagreement in the major cases often seemed stark this week, there were occasional efforts to bridge the divide. Playing a role he often adopts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed eager to downplay the practical significance of the court's ruling barring nationwide injunctions in most instances. Kavanaugh said the district court injunctions at issue are rarely 'the last word' in high-profile fights over executive power. Those battles ultimately end up at the Supreme Court, he argued, so whether a district court's injunction is enforced nationwide or not matters less than what the justices decide on the slew of emergency applications landing on their so-called shadow docket. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass,' wrote Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee. During speaking appearances last month, Chief Justice John Roberts insisted the justices aren't at each other's throats, despite the tone of some of the opinions that come out as the court winds down its work for the term. 'I'm sure people listening to the news or reading our decisions, particularly decisions that come out in May and June, maybe think, 'Boy, those people really must hate each other. They must be at hammer and tong the whole time,'' the chief justice told an audience in Buffalo. However, Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, also said the court's summer recess is a welcome respite not only from work, but from colleagues. 'That break is critical to maintaining a level of balance,' he said. Roberts, who traditionally teaches a legal course overseas during the summer and lounges at his vacation home in Maine, has one more official gig before he heads out. He's scheduled to speak Saturday morning to a judicial conference in North Carolina, where he'll have a chance to offer his latest thoughts on whether his colleagues are grating on each other or getting along.
Politico
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Biden pays respects as former Minnesota House Speaker Hortman, killed in shooting, lies in state
ST. PAUL, Minnesota — Former President Joe Biden joined thousands of mourners Friday as former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman lay in state in the Minnesota Capitol rotunda while the man charged with killing her and her husband, and wounding a state senator and his wife, made a brief court appearance in a suicide prevention suit. Hortman, a Democrat, is the first woman and one of fewer than 20 Minnesotans accorded the honor. She lay in state with her husband, Mark, and their golden retriever, Gilbert. Her husband was also killed in the June 14 attack, and Gilbert was seriously wounded and had to be euthanized. It was the first time a couple has lain in state at the Capitol, and the first time for a dog. The Hortmans' caskets and the dog's urn were arranged in the center of the rotunda, under the Capitol dome, with law enforcement officers keeping watch on either side as thousands of people who lined up filed by. Many fought back tears as they left. Among the first to pay their respects were Gov. Tim Walz, who has called Hortman his closest political ally, and his wife, Gwen. Biden, a Catholic, visited later in the afternoon, walking up to the velvet rope in front of the caskets, making the sign of the cross, and spending a few moments by himself in silence. He then took a knee briefly, got up, made the sign of the cross again, and walked off to greet people waiting in the wings of the rotunda. The Capitol was open for the public from noon to 5 p.m. Friday, but officials said anyone waiting in line at 5 would be let in. House TV livestreamed the viewing. A private funeral is set for 10:30 a.m. Saturday and will be livestreamed on the Department of Public Safety's YouTube channel. Biden will attend the funeral, a spokesperson said. So will former Vice President Kamala Harris, though neither is expected to speak. Harris expressed her condolences earlier this week to Hortman's adult children, and spoke with Walz, her running mate on the 2024 Democratic presidential ticket, who extended an invitation on behalf of the Hortman family, her office said. Lisa Greene, who lives in Brooklyn Park like Hortman did, but in a different House district, said she came to the Capitol because she had so much respect for the former speaker. 'She was just amazing. Amazing woman. 'And I was just so proud that she represented the city that I lived in,' Greene said in a voice choked with emotion. 'She was such a leader. She could bring people together. She was so accessible. I mean, she was friendly, you could talk to her.' But, she went on to say admiringly, Hortman was also 'a boss. She just knew what she was doing and she could just make things happen.' A hearing takes a twist: The man accused of killing the Hortmans and wounding another Democratic lawmaker and his wife made a short court appearance Friday to face charges for what the chief federal prosecutor for Minnesota has called 'a political assassination.' Vance Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, surrendered near his home the night of June 15 after what authorities have called the largest search in Minnesota history. An unshaven Boelter was brought in wearing just a green padded suicide prevention suit and orange slippers. Federal defender Manny Atwal asked Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko to continue the hearing until Thursday. She said Boelter has been sleep deprived while on suicide watch in the Sherburne County Jail, and that it has been difficult to communicate with him as a result. 'Your honor, I haven't really slept in about 12 to 14 days,' Boelter told the judge. And he denied being suicidal. 'I've never been suicidal and I am not suicidal now.' Atwal told the court that Boelter had been in what's known as a 'Gumby suit,' without undergarments, ever since his transfer to the jail after his first court appearance on June 16. She said the lights are on in his area 24 hours a day, doors slam frequently, the inmate in the next cell spreads feces on the walls, and the smell drifts to Boelter's cell. The attorney said transferring him to segregation instead, and giving him a normal jail uniform, would let him get some sleep, restore some dignity, and let him communicate better. The judge agreed. Prosecutors did not object to the delay and said they also had concerns about the jail conditions. The acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joseph Thompson, told reporters afterward that he did not think Boelter had attempted to kill himself. The case continues: Boelter did not enter a plea. Prosecutors need to secure a grand jury indictment first, before his arraignment, which is when a plea is normally entered. According to the federal complaint, police video shows Boelter outside the Hortmans' home and captures the sound of gunfire. And it says security video shows Boelter approaching the front doors of two other lawmakers' homes dressed as a police officer. His lawyers have declined to comment on the charges, which could carry the federal death penalty. Thompson said last week that no decision has been made. Minnesota abolished its death penalty in 1911. The Death Penalty Information Center says a federal death penalty case hasn't been prosecuted in Minnesota in the modern era, as best as it can tell. Boelter also faces separate murder and attempted murder charges in state court that could carry life without parole, assuming that county prosecutors get their own indictment for first-degree murder. But federal authorities intend to use their power to try Boelter first. Other victims and alleged targets: Authorities say Boelter shot and wounded Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, at their home in Champlin before shooting and killing the Hortmans in their home in the northern Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park, a few miles away. Federal prosecutors allege Boelter also stopped at the homes of two other Democratic lawmakers. Prosecutors also say he listed dozens of other Democrats as potential targets, including officials in other states. Friends described Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views. But prosecutors have declined so far to speculate on a motive.
