Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares187 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Want Lower Taxes. The Hard Part Is Choosing What to Cut.

      by

      House Republicans are preparing to adopt a plan that puts a $4.5 trillion limit on the size of the tax cut, but even that will not be enough for some of President Trump’s promises.Since their party swept to power, Republicans have entertained visions of an all-inclusive tax cut — one that could permanently lower rates for individuals, shower corporations with new incentives and deliver President Trump’s sprawling suite of campaign promises.If only it were so easy.House Republicans are preparing to adopt a budget plan that puts a $4.5 trillion upper limit on the size of the tax cut. Even such a huge sum is not nearly enough for all of their ideas, and so lawmakers must now decide which policy commitments are essential and which ones they can live without.For a sense of the Republican predicament, take a look at the 2017 tax cuts. Many of the measures in that law, including a larger standard deduction and more generous child tax credit, expire at the end of the year. The overriding goal of this year’s bill is to extend the expiring provisions, which provide their largest benefits to the rich, before they end.But accomplishing just that would cost roughly $4 trillion over the next 10 years. Then there’s a coveted business tax break for research and development — which, in an example of the zigzag of tax policy in Washington, Republicans wound down in 2017 and now want to revive. That would be another $150 billion. Allowing companies to once again deduct more of the interest on their debt is another $50 billion.Those changes are the table stakes. They essentially amount to preserving the status quo. And together they would eat up all but $300 billion of the $4.5 trillion Republicans are giving themselves to cut taxes. That’s not very much money, considering the ambitions Mr. Trump and other Republicans have for the bill.The squeeze is on.“You do start running out of space to do other things,” said Andrew Lautz, a tax policy expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares181 Views

      in Elections

      First Test of Trump’s Power to Fire Officials Reaches Supreme Court

      by

      In the first case to reach the Supreme Court arising from the blitz of actions taken in the early weeks of the new administration, lawyers for President Trump asked the justices on Sunday to let him fire a government lawyer who leads a watchdog agency.The administration’s emergency application asked the court to vacate a federal trial judge’s order temporarily reinstating Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Mr. Dellinger leads an independent agency charged with safeguarding government whistle-blowers and enforcing certain ethics laws. The position is unrelated to special counsels appointed by the Justice Department.“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” the administration’s filing said.The court is expected to act in the coming days.The filing amounts to a challenge to a foundational precedent that said Congress can limit the president’s power to fire leaders of independent agencies, a critical issue as Mr. Trump seeks to reshape the federal government through summary terminations.Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, leads an independent agency charged with safeguarding government whistle-blowers and enforcing certain ethics laws. U.S. Office of Special CounselThe statute that created the job now filled by Mr. Dellinger, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2024, provides for a five-year term and says the special counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” But a one-sentence email to Mr. Dellinger on Feb. 7 gave no reasons for terminating him, effective immediately.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares181 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Legal Shakedowns Won’t End With the Adams Case

      by

      Every occupying force knows the tactic: If you want to cow a large population, pick one of its most respected citizens and demand he debase himself and pledge fealty. If he refuses, execute him and move on to the next one. This is how the Trump Justice Department thinks it will bring U.S. attorneys’ offices around the country under its control, starting last week with the Southern District of New York. Firing or demanding the resignation of a previous administration’s top prosecutors has become standard. After all, elections matter, and a new president should be free to set new priorities.But the Trump Justice Department’s twisted loyalty game is something new, dangerous and self-defeating. And this round probably won’t be the last.In instructing the Southern District to drop the case against Mayor Eric Adams of New York, Emil Bove III, the acting deputy attorney general, found a useful loyalty test. In his letter to Danielle Sassoon, the interim Southern District U.S. attorney, Mr. Bove gave two transparently inappropriate reasons: a baseless claim that the prosecution was politicized, which her powerful resignation letter demolished, and a barely concealed suggestion that a dismissal would provide leverage over Mr. Adams and ensure his cooperation in the administration’s efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. As Hagan Scotten, who led the Adams prosecution and has also resigned, nicely put it, “No system of ordered liberty can allow the government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives.”When Ms. Sassoon, to her considerable credit, refused to debase herself and her office by proceeding on these rationales, Mr. Bove moved on to lawyers in Washington. Each resigned, until finally he found officials who would join him in signing.I don’t know why the Southern District was the first office in Mr. Bove’s cross hairs. Perhaps Mr. Adams’s lawyers, with connections to President Trump and Elon Musk, were first in a line of cronies seeking sweet deals for their clients. Perhaps Mr. Adams’s pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago gave his case priority. Perhaps Mr. Bove has demanded similar demonstrations of loyalty from other offices, which quietly caved. Or perhaps Mr. Bove, an alumnus of the Southern District, thought its reputation for independence required it to be the first brought to heel.At the nation’s founding, the Southern District quickly assumed importance because the New York Customs House was the source of a large chunk of the government’s revenue. Its present culture was established when President Theodore Roosevelt recruited an elite New York lawyer, Henry Stimson, later a secretary of war and secretary of state, to go after abusive monopolies. Merit, not the usual patronage concerns, drove Mr. Stimson’s recruitment of young lawyers, including Felix Frankfurter and Emory Buckner, who would become an esteemed leader of the office.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares183 Views

      in Elections

      Prominent Cryptocurrency Investor Faces Senate Tax Inquiry

      by

      The Finance Committee’s top Democrat sent a letter last month to Dan Morehead, the founder of Pantera Capital, about the investigation.A Senate committee is investigating whether a prominent cryptocurrency investor violated federal tax law to save hundreds of millions of dollars after he moved to Puerto Rico, a popular offshore tax haven, according to a letter reviewed by The New York Times.Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, sent the letter on Jan. 9 to Dan Morehead, the founder of Pantera Capital, one the largest crypto investment firms.The letter said the Senate Finance Committee was investigating tax compliance by wealthy Americans who had moved to Puerto Rico to take advantage of a special tax break for the island’s residents that can reduce tax bills to zero.The investigation was focused on people who had improperly applied the tax break to avoid paying taxes on income that was earned outside Puerto Rico, according to the letter.“In most cases, the majority of the gain is actually U.S. source income, reportable on U.S. tax returns, and subject to U.S. tax,” the letter said.The letter requested detailed information from Mr. Morehead about $850 million in investment profits he made after moving to Puerto Rico in 2020, noting that he “may have treated” the gains as exempt from U.S. taxes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares195 Views

      in Elections

      JD Vance Is in Charge of Getting a TikTok Deal. Can He Find a Buyer?

      by

      The vice president is in a tricky position as he looks for a deal to save the popular short-form video app, which is subject to being banned in the U.S. if it is not sold to a non-Chinese owner.Last week, an aide for Vice President JD Vance reached out to the billionaire Frank McCourt.The topic at hand was Mr. McCourt’s $20 billion long-shot offer to buy TikTok, the Chinese-owned video app. Mr. Vance’s aide wanted details about the bid, which was one of several public overtures for the app, according to two people familiar with the process.The inquiry was one of Mr. Vance’s earliest moves toward corralling a deal for the popular app after President Trump tapped him earlier this month to find an arrangement to save it. TikTok was recently banned in the United States under a new federal law that prohibited distribution in the country if it was not sold to a non-Chinese owner, though Mr. Trump delayed enforcement of the law until early April.Mr. Trump’s assignment plunges Mr. Vance into a fraught geopolitical and corporate negotiation over the fate of the app, which counts some 170 million American users. It is not clear who could buy TikTok in the United States, or even whether China or ByteDance, TikTok’s owner, would allow a sale. And the Trump administration is under scrutiny for its decision to disregard the law’s Jan. 19 deadline for a sale or a ban. Mr. Vance’s involvement ensures that he and Mr. Trump — both of whom once supported banning TikTok because of national security concerns — have some public accountability for saving it, according to analysts and people involved in negotiations for a sale. Tapping Mr. Vance could also help lend negotiations more credibility, said Peter Harrell, a former Biden White House official who worked on national security, tech and economic issues.“What he brings to the role is everybody’s going to take his call and take him seriously,” Mr. Harrell said. “Most people, given Trump has been pretty clear he’s tapped Vance for this, will assume that Vance is speaking for the president.”An electronic billboard for TikTok in Times Square. Mr. Vance’s involvement adds some credibility to the White House’s efforts to find new owner for TikTok.Juan Arredondo for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares195 Views

      in Elections

      California Bill Would Force Insurers to Pay Full Coverage Without Requiring Itemization

      by

      A proposed new law would release homeowners from the onerous process of listing every object lost in a destroyed home.California’s insurance commissioner joined with state legislators on Friday to propose a new law that would force insurers to pay homeowners 100 percent of the coverage for belongings inside destroyed homes, releasing them from the mentally taxing process of listing every object they lost — a requirement of many insurers, and one that consumer advocates say only compounds the trauma.If passed, the legislation would make California the only state in the country requiring 100 percent insurance payouts without such itemization. Similar legislation in Oregon and Colorado following catastrophic fires in those states require insurers to pay 70 and 65 percent of the coverage limit, without an inventory, according to Emily Rogan, a senior program officer for United Policyholders, which supports the rights of consumers.The bill applies only to homes that were destroyed in a disaster and calls on insurance companies to pay a homeowner’s total contents coverage without forcing them to provide an inventory, according to the bill’s sponsor, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and the bill’s author, State Senator Ben Allen.“The idea here is, we say, ‘Look, this is the insurance plan that you own. You have a total loss, and we’re not going to require you to draw up this itemized list in this moment of incredible pain and vulnerability,’” said Mr. Allen, whose district includes the Pacific Palisades burn zone.Forcing homeowners to account for every last item in their former house is “inhumane,” said Mr. Lara, adding that he was inspired to name the bill “Eliminate ‘The List’” after The New York Times published an article detailing the experience of a homeowner in Altadena, Calif., as she attempted to itemize every T-shirt burned in the flames. “It’s hard to describe the agony in people’s faces,” he said.The proposed law comes a week after Mr. Lara issued a bulletin imploring insurance companies to voluntarily pay 100 percent of the contents coverage for homes destroyed in the recent fires. That notice did not have the force of law, and the commissioner said that “it’s clear that we need to go further,” based both on the Times’s reporting and on the feedback his office has received from distressed homeowners.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares198 Views

      in Elections

      Defying Johnson, Graham and Senate G.O.P. Push Their Own Budget Plan

      by

      For days, Speaker Mike Johnson had called and texted Senator Lindsey Graham, imploring him to wait for the House to take the lead in the legislative drive to enact President Trump’s sweeping tax, budget and immigration agenda.When the three men converged in New Orleans on Sunday in the president’s suite at the Super Bowl, Mr. Graham shut him down in person.“I’m a huge fan, and nothing would please me more than one big, beautiful bill passing the House,” Mr. Graham recounted telling the speaker, a Louisiana Republican. But, he said, the Senate would press ahead with its own bill, adding, “We are living on borrowed time.”Senate Republicans have waited for weeks for their House colleagues to resolve their differences and agree to a budget blueprint that could unlock the party’s push to pass a vast fiscal package with only a simple majority vote. But House Republicans have remained divided over major issues, including how deeply to cut federal programs to pay for the bill, and have blown past several self-imposed deadlines.Enter Mr. Graham, the fast-talking fourth-term Republican senator from South Carolina and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.A loyal Trump ally who has long relished the opportunity to be in the middle of the action, Mr. Graham has made it clear in recent days that he has no intention of waiting for the House. Instead, Mr. Graham has advanced a budget plan that his committee is set to take up on Wednesday that would increase spending for the military and border security measures. He has promised that another bill extending the 2017 tax cuts will come later.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Hochul Halts Bill Aimed at Weakening Republican Control of House

      by

      Lawmakers were ready to pass a bill to delay a special election in New York State, but Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is in discussions with President Trump on congestion pricing, sidelined it.Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York pressured state legislative leaders on Monday to call off a vote on a bill designed to hobble Republicans’ House majority, frustrating fellow Democrats who were prepared to approve it.Neither Ms. Hochul nor leaders of the State Senate or Assembly gave any public explanation for the 11th-hour postponement. But in private conversations, the governor told them she was seeking to gain leverage in separate negotiations with President Trump over the future of the state’s new congestion pricing program, according to two officials familiar with the matter.If lawmakers had followed through, the vote would almost certainly have antagonized Mr. Trump by giving Ms. Hochul the power to delay until November a special election to fill the House seat that will be vacated by Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, Mr. Trump’s chosen U.N. ambassador, when she is confirmed by the Senate. A monthslong vacancy would deprive House Republicans of a crucial vote as they try to muscle Mr. Trump’s legislative agenda through Congress.Republicans currently control 218 seats in the House, including Ms. Stefanik’s in New York’s North Country, to the Democrats’ 215. (Republicans are expected to pick up two more seats in Florida in special elections in April.)It was not immediately clear if Mr. Trump had expressed dissatisfaction about the bill to the governor, causing her to call off the vote on the special election timing, or if Ms. Hochul was being strategic by wanting to hold a bargaining chit in their talks about congestion pricing. A spokesman for Ms. Hochul declined to comment.The governor’s intervention threw the future of the special election proposal into doubt and risked alienating a key ally: Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top House Democrat who had been aggressively lobbying the governor and state lawmakers to adopt it.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More