Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US Senate passes aid and public broadcasting cuts in victory for Trump

      by

      The US Senate has approved Donald Trump’s plan for billions of dollars in cuts to funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, handing the Republican president another victory as he exerts control over Congress with little opposition.The Senate voted 51 to 48 in favour of Trump’s request to cut $9bn in spending already approved by Congress.Most of the cuts are to programmes to assist foreign countries stricken by disease, war and natural disasters, but the plan also eliminates the $1.1bn the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was due to receive over the next two years.Trump and many of his fellow Republicans argue that spending on public broadcasting is an unnecessary expense and reject its news coverage as blighted by “anti-right bias”.Standalone rescissions packages have not passed in decades, with lawmakers reluctant to cede their constitutionally mandated control of spending. But the Republicans, who hold narrow majorities in the Senate and House, have shown little appetite for resisting Trump’s policies since he began his second term in January.The $9bn at stake is small in the context of the $6.8tn federal budget, and represents a tiny portion of all the funds approved by Congress that the Trump administration has held up while it has pursued sweeping cuts, many ordered by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (Dog)e.By mid-June, Trump was blocking $425bn in funding that had been appropriated and approved by Congress, according to Democratic lawmakers tracking frozen funding.However, the president and his supporters have promised more of the “rescission” requests to eliminate previously approved spending in what they say is an effort to pare back the federal government.The House of Representatives passed the rescissions legislation, without altering Trump’s request, by 214-212 last month. Four Republicans joined 208 Democrats in voting no.But after a handful of Republican senators balked at the extent of the cuts to global health programmes, Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said on Tuesday that Pepfar, a global programme to fight HIV/Aids launched in 2003 by President George W Bush, was being exempted.The change brought the size of the package of cuts to $9bn from $9.4bn, requiring another House vote before the measure could be sent to the White House for Trump to sign into law.The rescissions must pass by Friday. Otherwise, the request would expire and the White House required to adhere to spending plans passed by Congress.Two of the Senate’s 53 Republicans , Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, joined Democrats in voting against the legislation. “You don’t need to gut the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Murkowski said told the Senateskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionShe said the Trump administration had not provided assurances that battles against diseases such as malaria and polio worldwide would be maintained. Murkowski called for Congress to assert its role in deciding how federal funds were spent.The Republican Senate majority leader, John Thune of South Dakota, called Trump’s request a “small, but important step toward fiscal sanity”.Democrats scoffed at that, noting that congressional Republicans had this month passed a massive package of tax and spending cuts that nonpartisan analysts estimated would add more than $3tn to the country’s $36.2tn debt.Democrats accused Republicans of giving up Congress’s constitutionally mandated control of federal spending.“Today, Senate Republicans turn this chamber into a subservient rubber stamp for the executive, at the behest of Donald Trump,” Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, representing New York, said. “Republicans embrace the credo of cut, cut, cut now, and ask questions later.”The cuts would overturn bipartisan spending agreements most recently passed in a full-year stopgap funding bill in March. Democrats warn a partisan cut could make it more difficult to negotiate government funding bills that must pass with bipartisan agreement by 30 September to avoid a shutdown.Appropriations bills require 60 votes to move ahead in the Senate but the rescissions package needs just 51, meaning Republicans can pass it without Democratic support. More

    • 200 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump lambasts Republicans pursuing what he calls the ‘Epstein hoax’ as ‘stupid people’ – live updates

      by

      The president then was asked what evidence he might have seen to change his stance on the Epstein case, which this morning he called a “hoax”.Trump doubled down on his claim that it’s a “big hoax,” but did not provide evidence to support this claim. He also claimed the Epstein case was “started by the Democrats,” but again cited no evidence (though he did mention the Steele Dossier, a report on Trump’s 2016 campaign that alleged cooperation with Russia?).“Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net and try to do the Democrats’s work,” Trump said.“They’re stupid people,” he continued to say about Republicans who believe there is more to be revealed about the Epstein case.A federal judge in Tennessee said on Wednesday that he would not rule this week on the legal status of Kilmar Ábrego, the migrant returned to the US after being wrongly deported to El Salvador, according to Adam Klasfeld, a legal reporter who was in the Nashville courtroom.Federal prosecutors sought to convince US district judge Waverly Crenshaw to reverse a magistrate judge’s ruling allowing Ábrego – who faces human smuggling charges that were only developed after his wrongful deportation to a Salvadorian prison became a source of embarrassment for the Trump administration – to be released on bail to await a trial.The Trump administration claimed Ábrego was in the MS-13 gang, although he was not charged with being a member and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a US supreme court order, the administration returned Ábrego to the US last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous”.A department of homeland security investigator, Peter Joseph, testified about the investigation on Wednesday, detailing information authorities learned from alleged co-conspirators with Ábrego in a migrant smuggling ring.Ábrego’s lawyers have suggested that the testimony of his alleged co-conspirators is unreliable, since all of them have either criminal or immigration cases of their own, with their deportations being deferred in exchange for their cooperation with the government.Even if the judge in orders him released from criminal custody, the Trump administration has said Ábrego will immediately be detained by immigration authorities and face a second deportation.Ábrego’s lawyers have asked US district judge Paula Xinis in Maryland to order the government to send him to Maryland if he is released in Tennessee, a request that aims to prevent his expulsion before trial.Donald Trump, who reportedly consumes a dozen Diet Cokes every day, just announced that he has convinced Coca-Cola to return to using sugar in its drinks.“I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so”, Trump posted on his social media network. “I’d like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You’ll see. It’s just better!”Coca-Cola currently sweetens its drinks with high-fructose corn syrup, in large part because a previous Republican president, Ronald Reagan, imposed tariffs on imported sugar in 1981, dramatically raising prices.Those tariffs and quotas had the effect of incentivizing domestic corn syrup production and consumption in the United States. Trump’s initiative could have the unintended effect of lowering the demand for corn, the domestic production of which is heavily subsidized by the federal government.If enough Americans agree with the president that Coca-Cola sweetened with sugar is better tasting, that could also cut against the efforts of his health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, to make Americans healthier by getting them to consume less sweet, carbonated beverages.Kennedy has supported efforts to prevent Americans from spending food-aid benefits on sugary, carbonated beverages.High-fructose corn syrup isn’t necessarily worse for us than table sugar, Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2012, but it is also healthier to avoid both.Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology, told the daly that the two sweeteners are chemically quite similar. High-fructose corn syrup, made from corn, is about 55% fructose and 40% glucose. Table sugar, or sucrose, is made from sugar cane or beets and is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. While high-fructose corn syrup often gets blamed for the nation’s obesity epidemic, Hu said, “we should worry about sugar in general”.In 2020, the NBC News affiliate in Seattle spoke to experts who confirmed that Coca-Cola made in Mexico, where it is sweetened with sugar, is not healthier than Coca-Cola produced with corn syrup.In keeping with the frantic pace of posting maintained by their boss, Donald Trump, the White House press office has a hyperactive social media feed on X, @RapidResponse47, that is very frequently updated with clips of the president’s statements, hour after hour.The account has posted 49 times already on Wednesday, and featured seven video clips of Trump’s comments on a range of issues during his meeting with Bahrain’s prime minister Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa. But the aides who run the account seem to be studiously avoiding one subject: Trump’s claim that the uproar over his administration’s decision not to release files from the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender he knew well, is ‘a hoax’.None of what Trump said about Epstein on Wednesday appeared on this official White House feed. Similarly, when Trump spoke to reporters on Tuesday, the account clipped and boosted his remarks on several other subjects, but ignored his claim that the subject of Epstein’s crimes was “sordid, but boring”.That marks a change from February, when the president’s press team shared a clip of Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, telling Fox host Jesse Watters, that she had the Epstein files on her desk. With a siren emoji, the account showed video of Bondi saying: “I think tomorrow, Jesse, breaking news right now, you’re going to see some Epstein information being released by my office”.“What’s you’re going to see, hopefully tomorrow, is a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot of information”, Bondi added. That information however has still not been released.Donald Trump has said that he thinks China will begin sentencing people to death for fentanyl manufacturing and distribution.Speaking at an event for the signing of the Halt Fentanyl Act, attended by family members of people who had died from overdoes, Trump said he imposed a tariff on China “because of fentanyl”.“I think we’re going to work it out so that China is going to end up going from that to giving the death penalty to the people that create this fentanyl and send it into our country,” Trump said. “I believe that’s going to happen soon.”Columbia University has agreed to adopt a controversial definition of antisemitism as it pursues an agreement with the administration aimed at restoring $400m in federal government grants frozen over its alleged failure to protect Jewish students.In a letter to students and staff, the university’s acting president, Claire Shipman, said it would incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism into its anti-discrimination policies as part of a broad overhaul.It is the latest in a string of concessions Columbia has made following criticisms – mainly from pro-Israel groups and Republican members of Congress – that university authorities had tolerated the expression of antisemitic attitudes in pro-Palestinian campus protests following the start of Israel’s assault on Gaza in 2023.“Columbia is committed to taking all possible steps to combat antisemitism and the University remains dedicated to ensuring that complaints of discrimination and harassment of all types, including complaints based on Jewish and Israeli identity, are treated in the same manner,” wrote Shipman.“Formally adding the consideration of the IHRA definition into our existing anti-discrimination policies strengthens our approach to combating antisemitism.”The definition, which describes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”, has been adopted by the US state department and several European government and EU groups.However, critics have say it is designed to shield Israel by punishing legitimate criticism of the country. They also complain that it conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism.Among the examples of criticisms accompanying the definition are “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”, “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nations” and “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel … than to the interests of their own nations”.Vice-president JD Vance earlier made the administration’s first big pitch to sell the public on Donald Trump’s sweeping budget-and-policy package in the swing political turf of northeastern Pennsylvania.Vance, whose tie-breaking vote got the bill through the Senate, touted the legislation’s tax breaks and cast Democrats as opponents of the cutting taxes because of their unanimous opposition to the legislation.Democrats, who’ve decried the bill’s deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, along with other provisions, are expected to try to use it against Republicans in closely contested congressional campaigns next year that will determine control of Congress.The GOP plans to use it to make their case as well, something the vice-president asked the crowd in working-class West Pittston to help with.“Go and talk to your neighbors, go and talk to your friends, about what this bill does for America’s citizens. Because we don’t want to wake up in a year and a half and give the Democrats power back,” he said.Speaking at at an industrial machine shop, the Vance was also quick to highlight the bill’s new tax deductions on overtime.“You earned that money,” Vance said. “You ought to keep it in your pocket.”He also promoted the legislation’s creation of a new children’s savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the treasury department.Recognizing the significance of the coal and gas industry in Pennsylvania, he also talked up the ways the law seeks to promote energy extraction, such as allowing increased leasing for drilling, mining and logging on public lands, speeding up government approvals and cutting royalty rates paid by extraction companies.“We are finally going to drill, baby drill and invest in American energy,” Vance said. “And I know you all love that.”The historic legislation, which Trump signed into law earlier this month with near unanimous Republican support, includes key campaign pledges like no tax on tips but also cuts Medicaid and food stamps by a staggering $1.2tn.Democrats recently held a town hall in House speaker Mike Johnson’s home state of Louisiana to denounce the legislation as a “reverse Robin Hood — stealing from the poor to give to the rich”.Vance’s office declined to elaborate to the Associated Press on plans for other public events around the US to promote the bill. After his remarks, he visited a nearby diner where he picked up food and spoke to some of the patrons.Here’s my colleague Oliver Holmes’s report on Trump lashing out against his own supporters for questioning the transparency of a secretive government inquiry into the late high-profile socialite and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein:

      Donald Trump backed away from suggestions he was moving to fire Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, following media reports that he had privately indicated to a meeting of GOP lawmakers last night that he would do so. After the bombshell reports rocked Wall Street this morning, the president pulled back, saying it was “highly unlikely” that he’ll fire Powell. “We’re not planning on doing anything,” Trump told reporters, unless Powell “has to leave” because of “fraud”, referring to the controversy over renovations to the Fed’s historic headquarters in Washington.

      Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren wrote on X: “Nobody is fooled by President Trump and Republicans’ sudden interest in building renovations — it’s clear pretext to fire Fed Chair Powell.” Trump indicated that he’d probably wait to replace Powell until his term ends next year. The president does not have the power to fire the Fed chair without cause.

      It has failed to distract from the growing furore from Trump’s usually ardently loyal Maga base over his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. His base is in uproar over the justice department’s recent decision to halt further disclosures related to Epstein, including the alleged client list, as well as its finding that he died by suicide. That reached new altitudes today when Trump branded the case a hoax and lashed out at his supporters-turned-critics, calling them “weaklings” and “stupid people” for buying into the conspiracy theories, which he blamed on (checks notes) Democrats. He is conveniently forgetting that both he himself and members of his administration have long stoked those same theories. He is also conveniently not acknowledging that prominent allies of his have joined the calls for the files to be released, including House speaker Mike Johnson, and influential Maga figures like far-right activist Laura Loomer.

      Trump also once again back Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein case and said: “Whatever’s credible she can release. If a document’s there that is credible, she can release [it], I think it’s good.”

      Secretary of state Marco Rubio, asked about Israeli strikes on Syria on Wednesday, said the United States was “very concerned”, adding that he had just spoken to the relevant parties over the phone. “We’re going to be working on that issue as we speak. I just got off the phone with the relevant parties. We’re very concerned about it, and hopefully we’ll have some updates later today. But we’re very concerned about it,” Rubio said. He added that the US wants fighting to stop as clashes between Syrian government troops and local Druze fighters broke out hours after a ceasefire agreement.

      Zohran Mamdani told New York business leaders yesterday he will not use the phrase “globalize the intifada” and discourage others from doing so. The mayoral frontrunner explained at the meeting that many use “globalize the intifada” as an expression of support for the Palestinian people and, for him, the phrase means protest against the Israeli occupation of Gaza, according to the Wall Street Journal. Mamdani also said he is willing to discourage the specific language, but not the idea behind it.

      A flight carrying immigrants deported from the US landed in Eswatini, the homeland security department announced, in a move that follows the supreme court lifting limits on deporting migrants to third countries.

      A group of 20 mostly Democrat-led US states filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Trump administration from terminating a multibillion-dollar grant program that funds infrastructure upgrades to protect against natural disasters.

      Robert F Kennedy Jr abruptly fired two of his top aides – chief of staff Heather Flick Melanson and deputy chief of staff for policy Hannah Anderson – CNN reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.
      “Many Republicans I’ve been talking to over the past few days have predicted that Trump would do something dramatic to distract from Epstein,” a Puck reporter wrote on X regarding today’s will he, won’t regarding sacking Jerome Powell.And as Politico notes, “though Trump appears to be holding off on Powell, a groundswell of backlash from both base and swing voters – over the Epstein files and the GOP megabill – continues to dominate headlines”.House speaker Mike Johnson has said he believes it would be beneficial to have new leadership at the Federal Reserve, although he added that he’s not sure the president has the authority to fire chair Jerome Powell, according to media reports.“I do I believe new leadership would be helpful at the Fed,” a Wall Street Journal reporter on X has quoted Johnson as saying.Punchbowl News, in a separate X post, reported Johnson said he’s “really not sure” if the president can fire Powell.US senator Elizabeth Warren has said that Donald Trump’s interest in renovations of Federal Reserve’s headquarters is “clear pretext” to fire chairman Jerome Powell.Last week, the White House intensified its criticism of how the Fed is being run when the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, sent Powell a letter saying Trump was “extremely troubled” by cost overruns in the $2.5bn renovation of its historic headquarters in Washington.Earlier today, following bombshell news reports that Trump was planning to fire Powell which rattled financial markets, the president pulled back in the Oval Office. Though he confirmed that the conversation with GOP lawmakers about whether he should fire the central bank leader took place, the president said it’s “highly unlikely” that he’ll fire Powell.“We’re not planning on doing anything,” Trump told reporters, unless Powell “has to leave” because of “fraud”, referring to the controversy over the renovations. The president indicated that he’d probably wait to replace Powell until his term ends next year.“Nobody is fooled by President Trump and Republicans’ sudden interest in building renovations — it’s clear pretext to fire Fed Chair Powell,” Warren, the ranking Democrat on the Senate banking committee, which oversees the Fed, said in a post on X.As we’ve fact-checked, the president doesn’t have the power to fire Powell over a monetary dispute and today he backed away from the idea, saying instead that “we get to make a change in eight months” (when Powell’s tenure expires).US senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has said that firing the Federal Reserve chair because “political people” don’t agree with his economic decision-making would undermine US credibility, adding that it would be a “huge mistake” to end the Fed’s independence.“You’re going to see a pretty immediate response and we’ve got to avoid that,” Tillis, a Republican member of the Senate banking committee, said on the floor of the chamber earlier.Trump has today backed away from the idea of firing Jerome Powell, saying instead that “we get to make a change in eight months” (when Powell’s tenure expires).The president does not have the power to fire the Federal Reserve chair. But reports today said that Trump had asked Republican lawmakers if he should fire Powell, and several people in the room indicated he will do it.Well, that more or less captures everything Donald Trump said in the oval office just now alongside Bahrain crown prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa.Trump again supported his attorney general, Pam Bondi, who has been under fire for her handling of the Epstein case.“I think she’s doing a great job.”The president was asked whether he would allow US attorney general Pam Bondi to release more information on the Jeffrey Epstein case.“Whatever’s credible she can release,” Trump said. “If a document’s there that is credible, she can release [it], I think it’s good.”But then he goes after Republicans again: “All it is is that certain Republicans got duped by the Democrats and they’re following the Democrat playbook. It’s no different than ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ and all the other hoaxes.”Trump tries to pivot to the Biden-autopen investigation that Republicans are leading against his predecessor. It has been widely seen as a partisan move to discredit the former Democratic president.“That’s the scandal they should be talking about, not Jeffrey Epstein,” he said. “I think it’s the biggest scandal – one of them – in American history.” More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      America’s famed ‘checks-and-balances’ governance system is failing | Jan-Werner Müller

      by

      It has been said many times, but saying it appears to have no consequences: our system of checks and balances is failing. The US supreme court allowing the president effectively to abolish the Department of Education only reinforces this sense; Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, explicitly wrote that “the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave” – but she did not explain how to counter the threat.The picture is complicated by the fact that what critics call “the stranglehold the checks and balances narrative on the American political imagination” has prevented positive democratic change. Hence it is crucial to understand where the separation of powers itself needs to be kept in check and where it can play a democracy-reinforcing role. Most important, we need counterstrategies against the Trumpists’ usurpation of what should remain separate powers.While pious talk of the founders’ genius in establishing “checks and balances” is part of US civil religion and constitutional folklore, the system in fact never functioned quite as intended. The framers had assumed that individuals would jealously guard the rights of the branches they occupied. Instead, the very thing that the founders dreaded as dangerous “factions” – what we call political parties – emerged already by the end of the 18th century; and thereby also arose the possibility of unified party government.The other unexpected development was the increasing power of the presidency; the founders had always seen the legislature as the potential source of tyranny; instead, the second half of the 20th century saw the consolidation of an “imperial presidency”, whose powers have steadily increased as a result of various real (and often imagined) emergencies. Some jurists even blessed this development, going back to Hamilton’s call for an energetic executive, and trusting that public opinion, rather than Congress or the courts, would prove an effective check on an otherwise “unbound executive”.The dangers posed by unified party control and a strong presidency were long mitigated by the relative heterogeneity of parties in the US; internal dissent meant that Congress would often thwart an executive’s agenda. Less obviously, Congress’s creation of largely independent agencies, acting on the basis of expertise, as well as inspectors general within the executive itself established an internal system of checks. It also remains true, though, that, compared with democracies such as Germany and the UK, an opposition party in the US does not have many rights (such as chairing committees) or ways of holding a chief executive accountable (just imagine if Trump had to face a weekly prime minister’s question time, rather than sycophantic Fox hosts).Most important, though, the executive itself tended to respect the powers of other branches. But Trump: not so much. In line with his governance model, of doing something plainly illegal and then seeing what happens, Trump is usurping powers reserved for the legislature. He uses money as he sees fit, not as Congress intended; he, not Congress, decides which departments are necessary. The tariff madness could be over if Congress called the bluff on a supposed “emergency” which justifies Trump’s capricious conduct of slapping countries with apparently random levies. The most egregious example is his recent threat vis-à-vis Brazil which has nothing to with trade deficits, but is meant to help his ideological ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, escape a criminal trial for a coup attempt.Trump is also destroying the internal checks within the executive. Inspectors general have been fired; independent agencies are made subservient to the president – in line with the theory of a “unified executive” long promoted by conservative jurists. The US supreme court, occupied to 67% by Maga has been blessing every power grab. As the legal scholar Steve Vladeck noted, the court has granted Trump relief in every single emergency application since early April, with seven decisions – like this week’s on the Department of Education – coming with no explanation at all. If this were happening in other countries, one would plainly speak of a captured court, that is to say: one subordinated to the governing party. As commentators have pointed out, it is inconceivable that this court would simply rubber-stamp a decision by a President Mamdani to fire almost everyone at the Department of Homeland Security.Still, the main culprit is the Republican party in Congress. There is simply no credible version of “conservatism” that justifies Trump’s total concentration of power; and anyone with an ounce of understanding of the constitution would recognize the daily violations. This case can be made without buying into the separation of powers narrative criticized by the left (though what they aim at is less the existence of checks as such, but the empowerment of rural minorities in the Senate and the proliferation of veto points in the political system, such that powerful private interests can stop popular legislation).Paradoxically, Democrats should probably make Congress even more dysfunctional than it already is: use every procedural means to grind business to a halt and explain to the public that – completely contrary to the founders’ anxieties – the emasculation of the legislature is causing democracy’s demise (it never hurts to slip in such gendered language to provoke the Republican masculinists).Of course, one might question what role public opinion can really play as a check, and whether there’s still such a thing at all given our fragmented media world: it never constrained the George W Bush administration’s “global war on terror” in the way that Hamilton’s self-declared disciples had hoped. But it’s still the best bet. After all, there is a reason why some jurists see “we the people” as the fourth branch that ultimately makes the difference.

      Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans advance Trump bill to cancel $9bn in approved spending

      by

      Senate Republicans on Tuesday advanced Donald Trump’s request to cancel about $9bn in previously approved spending, overcoming concerns about what the rescissions could mean for impoverished people around the globe and for public radio and television stations in their home states.JD Vance broke the tie on the procedural vote, allowing the measure to advance, 51-50.A final vote in the Senate could occur as early as Wednesday. The bill would then return to the House for another vote before it would go to the US president’s desk for his signature before a Friday deadline.Republicans winnowed down the president’s request by taking out his proposed $400m cut to a program known as Pepfar. That change increased the prospects for the bill’s passage. The politically popular program is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then president George W Bush to combat HIV/Aids.Trump is also looking to claw back money for foreign aid programs targeted by his so-called “department of government efficiency” and for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.“When you’ve got a $36tn debt, we have to do something to get spending under control,” said Senate majority leader John Thune.Republicans met with Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during their weekly conference luncheon as the White House worked to address their concerns. He fielded about 20 questions from senators. There was some back and forth, but many of the concerns were focused on working toward a resolution, either through arrangements with the administration directly or via an amendment to the bill, said senator John Hoeven.The White House campaign to win over potential holdouts had some success. Senator Mike Rounds tweeted that he would vote to support the measure after working with the administration to “find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption”.Some senators worried that the cuts to public media could decimate many of the 1,500 local radio and television stations around the country that rely on some federal funding to operate. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes more than 70% of its funding to those stations.Maine senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate appropriations committee, said the substitute package marked “progress”, but she still raised issues with it, particularly on a lack of specifics from the White House. She questioned how the package could still total $9 billion while also protecting programs that Republicans favor.Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she didn’t want the Senate to be going through numerous rounds of rescissions.“We are lawmakers. We should be legislating,” Murkowski said. “What we’re getting now is a direction from the White House and being told: ‘This is the priority and we want you to execute on it. We’ll be back with you with another round.’ I don’t accept that.”But the large majority of Republicans were supportive of Trump’s request.“This bill is a first step in a long but necessary fight to put our nation’s fiscal house in order,” said senator Eric Schmitt.Democrats oppose the package. They see Trump’s request as an effort to erode the Senate filibuster. They also warn it’s absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don’t like.“It shreds the appropriations process,” said senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. “The appropriations committee, and indeed this body, becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.”Democratic leader Chuck Schumer cautioned that tens of millions of Americans rely on local public radio and television stations for local news, weather alerts and educational programs. He warned that many could lose access to that information because of the rescissions.“And these cuts couldn’t come at a worse time,” Schumer said. “The floods in Texas remind us that speedy alerts and up-to-the-minute forecasts can mean the difference between life and death.”Democrats also scoffed at the GOP’s stated motivation for taking up the bill. The amount of savings pales compared to the $3.4trn in projected deficits over the next decade that Republicans put in motion in passing Trump’s big tax and spending cut bill two weeks ago.“Now, Republicans are pretending they are concerned about the debt,” said senator Patty Murray. “So concerned that they need to shut down local radio stations, so concerned they are going to cut off Sesame Street … The idea that that is about balancing the debt is laughable.”With Republicans providing enough votes to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. The House has already shown its support for the president’s request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate is amending the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote.Republicans who vote against the measure also face the prospect of incurring Trump’s wrath. He has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the rescissions package. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.“Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,” he said. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US university leaders challenge campus antisemitism claims in House hearing

      by

      Rich Lyons, the chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, challenged US House Republicans on Tuesday as they questioned him and leaders of Georgetown University and the City University of New York in the latest hearing on antisemitism in higher education.The committee accused the schools of failing to respond adequately to allegations of bias or discrimination; however, the university leaders said that disciplinary action had been taken where appropriate and stressed the importance of protecting free speech.Lyons pushed back on the suggestion that antisemitism was more present on college campuses than anywhere else.“If somebody is expressing pro-Palestinian beliefs, that’s not necessarily antisemitic,” he said.Lyons, who has just completed his first year as chancellor, is also the first UC leader to face the House committee during the Trump presidency. In his opening remarks, he defended the campus’ commitment to free speech.“As a public institution, Berkeley has a solemn obligation to protect the quintessential American value of free speech,” Lyons said. “This obligation does not prevent us, let me repeat, does not prevent us from confronting harassment and discrimination in all its forms, including antisemitism.”The hearing was the ninth in a series Republicans have held to scrutinize university leadership over allegations of antisemitism on campuses after a wave of protests over Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, which has killed more than 60,000 people, in retaliation to Hamas’ 7 October 2023 attack on Israel. Widely criticized testimony before the committee by the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University in 2023 contributed to their resignations.At Tuesday’s hearing, Democrats blasted Republican committee members for their focus on antisemitism while not speaking on the dismantling of the education department, which is tasked with investigating antisemitism and other civil rights violations in schools.“They have turned this hearing room into a kangaroo court, where they spend our time litigating a predetermined outcome to do nothing, actually, to help Jewish students, just make public theater out of legitimate pain,” said the California representative Mark Takano.Republicans said university leaders have allowed campus antisemitism to run unchecked.“Universities can choose to hire antisemitic faculty, welcome students with a history of antisemitism, accept certain foreign funding, and let the behavior of antisemitic unions go unchecked,” Tim Walberg, a Michigan representative and committee chair, said in his opening statements. “But we will see today they do so at their own risk.”The hearing was periodically interrupted by protesters, who shouted pro-Palestinian slogans before being removed by Capitol police. Randy Fine, a Florida representative, berated the college presidents and said they were responsible because of the attitudes they had permitted on their campuses.Republicans pressed the three college leaders on whether they had disciplined or fired faculty and employees for behavior they said was antisemitic. Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative of New York, pressed the CUNY chancellor, Félix Matos Rodríguez, on the employment of a law professor who worked on the legal defense of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist the Trump administration attempted to deport over his role in protests at Columbia University.Stefanik pushed Matos Rodríguez to answer whether the professor should be fired. Without responding directly, Matos Rodríguez defended CUNY and said antisemitism had no place at the school. He said any student or employee who broke CUNY rules would be investigated.University leaders also emphasized the importance of free speech on campuses for students and faculty.Robert Groves, the interim president at Georgetown, said that as a Jesuit university, fostering interfaith dialogue and understanding was a key part of the school’s mission. He said the university has not experienced any encampments or physical violence since the Hamas attack in October 2023.“Given our Jesuit values, we expose students to different viewpoints on the Middle East,” Groves said. “In addition to speakers on Gaza, we’ve hosted IDF soldiers, families of Israelis and Palestinians who’ve lost their lives. US families of US hostages in Gaza. Georgetown is not perfect, and as events evolve, we’ve had to clarify rules of student behavior.”Lyons, as well, said his campus has “more work to do” to prevent antisemitism.“I am the first to say that we have more work to do. Berkeley, like our nation, has not been immune to the disturbing rise in antisemitism. And as a public university, we have a solemn obligation to protect our community from discrimination and harassment, while also upholding the first amendment right to free speech,” he said. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Political theatre’: key takeaways from US universities’ House antisemitism hearing

      by

      Lawmakers questioned the leaders of the University of California at Berkeley, Georgetown University and the City University of New York in the final antisemitism hearing the House of Representatives has held since the 7 October attacks and ensuing war in Gaza broke out in 2023.Georgetown University’s interim president Robert Groves, Cuny’s chancellor Félix V Matos Rodríguez and UC Berkeley’s chancellor Rich Lyons faced scrutiny from Republican representatives – who questioned the universities’ hiring practices, faculty unions, Middle East study centers, foreign funding and DEI initiatives.Congress’s preceding antisemitism hearings featured tense exchanges between Republican lawmakers such as representative Elise Stefanik, and precipitated the resignations of the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard and Columbia.While denouncing antisemitism, Democratic lawmakers spoke out against the focus of the hearing, calling it “political theatre” and criticizing the Trump administration’s gutting of the government agencies that enforce civil rights protections.“I’d be remiss if I did not point out that this is our ninth hearing on antisemitism in 18 months,” said ranking member Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia. “I’ll also note that since this committee’s first antisemitism hearing in December 2023 we have not held a single hearing addressing racism, xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia or other challenges affecting other student groups on American college campuses.”1. Campus leaders denounced antisemitismIn their opening statements, each of the university leaders present at Tuesday’s hearings began their remarks by condemning antisemitism, and in many cases listing actions their campuses had undertaken to prevent future antisemitism.Georgetown was one of the first campuses to condemn the 7 October attacks, Groves said, adding: that “Antisemitism is incompatible with living our mission; the same applies to Islamophobia and racism.”“Berkeley unequivocally condemns antisemitism,” Lyons echoed. He added: “I am the first to say we have more work to do. Berkeley, like our nation, has not been immune to the disturbing rise in antisemitism.”Matos Rodríguez shared a similar remark: “Our university has not been immune, but let me be clear: antisemitism has no place at Cuny.” He added that the university now has a zero-tolerance policy toward encampments, like those students established at City College and Brooklyn College in 2024.2. Democrats criticized the Trump administration’s approachDemocratic lawmakers and witnesses noted that the Trump administration’s decision to shutter federal agencies tasked with enforcing civil rights protections will not protect Jewish students on college campuses.“Antisemitism in America and on campuses is real” but “this administration’s approach is contradictory and counterproductive,” said Matt Nosanchuck, a former deputy assistant secretary for the education department’s office for civil rights under the Obama administration. He urged that “Congress must fulfill its core responsibilites” to give agencies appropriate resources, not conduct political theatre.In his opening remarks, Scott criticized his fellow committee members for saying “nothing about the firings attacking the office of civil rights” or the supreme court decision allowing the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education. The Trump administration closed seven of the office of civil rights’ 12 regional offices in March.“If the majority wanted to fight antisemitism and protect Jewish students, they should condemn antisemitism in their own party and at the highest level of government,” said Democratic representative Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon. “They have failed to do so. Multiple White House officials have ties to antisemitic extremists.”3. Republicans questioned faculty hiring and union practicesTo begin the hearing, Walberg said that the committee would “be examining several factors that incite antisemitism on college campuses” including faculty unions and faculty membership in the group Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine.He later questioned Matos-Rodríguez about a Hunter College faculty job posting looking for candidates who could “take a critical lense” to issues such as “settler colonialsm, genocide, human rights, apartheid” and others. Matos-Rodríguez called the listing “entirely inappropriate” and said he ordered it revised immediately upon learning about it.Representative Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina, focused her questioning on questions around faculty hiring and union practices. She questioned Matos-Rodríguez on the fact that the president of Cuny’s faculty union supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. She also questioned Lyons on Columbia’s hiring practices, which she said had allowed antisemitic faculty to join the staff.“We use academic standards to hire faculty. We don’t use ideological conditions to hire faculty,” Lyons said.4. Democrats called the hearings part of a greater move to defund higher education“I’m concerned by what I see happening here. Because instead of solving a problem, we’re watching some try to use antisemitism as a reason to go after higher education,” said representative Alma Adams, a Democrat from North Carolina.“Let’s not forget as we sit here today, the Department of Education is withholding more than $6bn in congressionally mandated funding from our K-12 schools,” she added.During her questioning Bonamici also questioned whether the antisemitism hearings were motivated by “plans to defund colleges and universities”.5. Tensions ran high between Republican and Democratic committee membersFollowing an exchange between representative Elise Stefanik of New York and Cuny chancellor Matos Rodríguez, California representative Mark DeSaulnier yielded his time so Matos Rodríguez could “respond to that outrageous attack by my colleague”.Stefanik had denounced the university for having on its staff an attorney also leading the legal defense fund for Mahmoud Khalil, who she called “chief pro-Hamas agitator that led to the anti-semitic encampments at Columbia”.Earlier in the hearing, California representative Mark Takano called the committee’s hearing “a kangaroo court”. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans may slash $9bn for public broadcasting and foreign aid in days

      by

      Senate Republicans may as soon as Tuesday move to pass legislation slashing up to $9bn in funds Congress had earlier approved for foreign aid programs and public broadcasting, as part of Donald Trump’s campaign of dramatic government spending cuts.The GOP is racing to meet a Friday deadline mandated by law for the bill, known as a rescissions package, to pass Congress, otherwise the Trump administration will be forced to spend the money. The House of Representatives approved the legislation last month by a narrow majority.The package will cancel $1.1bn budgeted for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS, and about $8bn meant for foreign assistance programs. But some Republicans have blanched at those cuts, and the Senate majority leader, John Thune, said he had agreed with demands to preserve $400m in funding for Pepfar, a program credited with saving millions of people from infection or death from HIV that was created under the Republican president George W Bush in 2003.“There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the Pepfar issue,” Thune told reporters. He added that he hoped for procedural votes on the bill to begin on Tuesday and “we’ll see how those come out”.Changing the bill will require it to again be voted on by the House, and earlier in the day, the speaker, Mike Johnson, urged Senate Republicans to pass the version his lawmakers sent them.“We’re encouraging our Senate partners over there to get the job done and to pass it as is,” he said at a press conference.Thune has described the rescissions package as “commonsense legislation” that will target “waste, fraud and abuse” in government spending, a term Republicans have deployed repeatedly since Trump took office to criticize programs they seek to cut. Some cuts, he said, were recommended by the so-called “department of government efficiency” downsizing initiative that was previously led by Elon Musk.“My Democrat colleagues may not want to acknowledge it, but we have a serious spending problem in this country,” Thune said during a floor speech on Tuesday. “And the very least we can do in response is to target some of the egregious misuses of taxpayer dollars that we are addressing today in this bill.”While Democrats can use the Senate’s filibuster to stop the chamber from considering most legislation they oppose, a rescissions package can be passed with a simple majority. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has warned that the bill is the beginning of a push by the Trump administration to reshape government services.“This package, as bad as it is, is a piece of a larger puzzle for Republicans. Their goal is to use rescissions, impoundment and pocket rescissions to eradicate any bit of bipartisanship out of appropriations, and that will pave the way for deeper and more serious spending cuts on things like healthcare, food assistance, energy and so many other areas,” he said.It remains unclear if the bill has the support it needs among Republican senators. Susan Collins, who represents blue state Maine and is expected to face a fierce re-election challenge next year, has criticized the package for slashing funds for important programs, rather than those identified as wasteful by the Trump administration.“This rescissions package, for the most part, has nothing to do with the lengthy list of questionable activities identified by the administration that were paid for with prior year funds,” she said late last month, as she chaired a Senate appropriations committee hearing into the request.In addition to opposing cuts to Pepfar, she signaled wariness to defunding public broadcasters.While Collins said she agreed with her fellow Republicans that programing on PBS and NPR had had “a discernibly partisan bent”, she believed there were “more targeted approaches to addressing that bias at NPR than rescinding all of the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting”.Other Republicans from rural states, including Lisa Murkowski, a moderate representing Alaska, have expressed skepticism over targeting public broadcasters, arguing they provide an important source of information in the countryside. On Tuesday, Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota announced his support for the bill after assurances that broadcasters in Indian reservations would continue receiving funds.“We wanted to make sure tribal broadcast services in South Dakota continued to operate which provide potentially lifesaving emergency alerts. We worked with the Trump administration to find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption,” he wrote on social media.Butall four Democrats in North Carolina’s congressional delegation have signed a letter to Senate leaders warning of the consequences of cutting public broadcasting, which they said provides “trusted, accessible, and crucial communication tools during natural disasters” such as last year’s Hurricane Helene. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats demand Pam Bondi and Kash Patel be summoned for Epstein hearing

      by

      Democratic members of the House judiciary committee on Thursday demanded that Republicans summon the attorney general, Pam Bondi, the FBI director, Kash Patel, and their deputies for a hearing into the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s death and the sex-trafficking case against him.The letter from all 19 Democratic members on the committee to its Republican chair, Jim Jordan, comes amid a rift between Donald Trump and some of his supporters over the justice department’s conclusion, announced last week, that Epstein’s death in federal custody six years ago was a suicide, and that there is no secret list of his clients to be made public.The US president, who knew Epstein personally, has long claimed that there is more to be made public about his death and involvement in running a sex-trafficking ring for global elites. Last week’s report, together with the justice department’s announcement that nothing further about his case would be made public, has sparked rare criticism of Trump among the rightwing influencers and commentators who are usually among his most ardent defenders.In their letter, Democrats argued that the matter can only be settled if Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, along with Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, appear before the judiciary committee.“The Trump DOJ and FBI’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and president Trump’s suddenly shifting positions, have not restored anyone’s trust in the government but have rather raised profound new questions about their own conduct while increasing public paranoia related to the investigation,” the Democratic lawmakers wrote.“Only a bipartisan public hearing at which administration officials answer direct questions from elected representatives before the eyes of the American people can restore public trust on the matter.”A spokesperson for Jordan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Democrats have sought to capitalize on the questions raised by the justice department’s announcement, and earlier on Tuesday, House Republicans blocked an attempt by the minority to force release of documents related to the Epstein case.Last week, most Democrats on the judiciary committee signed a letter to Bondi that accused her of withholding some files related to the financier to protect Trump from any damaging disclosures. It went on to call for the release of any documents in the Epstein files that mention Trump, as well as the second volume of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified materials.In this week’s letter, Democrats argued that only a congressional hearing would resolve whether there is indeed a cover-up over Epstein’s death, or if Trump was just promoting conspiracy theories as he sought an advantage on the campaign trail.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“We must submit to public scrutiny President Trump’s and MAGA’s longstanding claims about the ‘Epstein files,’ new questions as to whether President Trump himself has something to hide, whether he is keeping damaging information secret to protect other individuals or to maintain future blackmail leverage over public and private actors,” the lawmakers wrote, “or, perhaps the simplest explanation, whether President Trump and his Administration magnified and disseminated groundless Epstein conspiracy theories for purposes of political gain which they are now desperately trying to disavow and dispel.”The reignited turmoil over the Epstein case has sparked reports that Bongino, a former podcaster who has long promoted conspiracies about his death, clashed with Bondi and is considering resigning his position at the FBI.Over the weekend, Trump defended Bondi in a post on Truth Social and pleaded with his supporters. “One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it’s the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about,” he wrote. More