Senate

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Thom Tillis, Republican Senator, Won’t Seek Re-election Amid Trump’s Primary Threats

      by

      The day after President Trump castigated Senator Thom Tillis for opposing the bill carrying the president’s domestic agenda, the North Carolina Republican said he would not seek a third term.Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, announced on Sunday that he would not seek re-election next year, a day after President Trump threatened to back a primary challenger against him because Mr. Tillis had said he opposed the bill carrying Mr. Trump’s domestic agenda.Mr. Tillis’s departure will set off a highly competitive race in North Carolina that could be pivotal in the battle for control of the closely divided Senate. It was the latest congressional retirement to underscore the rightward shift of the G.O.P. and the reality that there is little room for any Republican to break with Mr. Trump.“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” Mr. Tillis said in a lengthy statement on his decision.The announcement came as the Senate was wading into a debate over the large-scale tax cut and domestic policy bill that Mr. Trump has demanded be delivered to his desk by July 4. Mr. Tillis announced his decision the day after issuing a statement saying he could not in good conscience support the measure, which he said would lead to tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for his state, costing people Medicaid coverage and critical health services.He was one of just two Republicans who voted Saturday night against bringing up the bill.Mr. Tillis has been privately critical of the legislation and cautioned colleagues of the political downsides for them if they back it. In a closed-door meeting with his Republican colleagues last week, he warned that the sweeping legislation could be an albatross for the party in 2026.The president’s allies celebrated Mr. Tillis’ announcement as more proof of Mr. Trump’s political strength. “Don’t Cross Trump,” Jason Miller, who served as a top adviser for the president’s re-election campaign, wrote on social media. “The voters gave him a mandate to implement a specific agenda, and they want everyone to get behind his efforts!”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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why a Bill Nobody Loves Feels Inevitable

      by

      President Trump’s megabill makes many Republicans uncomfortable, but that probably won’t stop it from becoming law.The path for the One Big Beautiful Bill, as President Trump calls his signature domestic legislation, has not been linear.The bill, which would extend the 2017 tax cuts and cut into the social safety net to pay for it, barely passed the House. It was heavily rewritten in the Senate. In recent days, various provisions have been rejected by a key Senate official whose job is to make sure that lawmakers color inside the lines of such budget bills, leaving senators scrambling to add back in what they can.Then there’s the fact that, as my colleagues Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson wrote today, nobody really loves the bill. But this is Trump’s Washington. And trifling matters like not knowing quite what’s going to be in the bill — and not particularly liking it — will probably not stop Senate Republicans from voting for it, potentially as soon as this weekend.I asked Catie, who has covered every twist and turn of this bill’s winding path, to explain how it became a policy grab bag, why it makes so many Republicans uncomfortable — and why none of that probably matters when it comes to its chances of becoming law.As we speak, Republicans are scrambling to save various provisions that the Senate parliamentarian believes run afoul of the rules governing budget bills. You’ve covered Congress since the first Trump administration, and you have seen a lot of sausage-making in that time. Is it always, uh, like this? 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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Right-Wing Republicans in Congress Attack Mamdani With Islamophobic Comments

      by

      The responses to Zohran Mamdani’s showing in the New York City mayoral primary were the latest examples of how some G.O.P. lawmakers have grown more overt in using bigoted language and tropes.Representative Andy Ogles, a hard-right Tennessee Republican, on Thursday used Islamophobic language on social media to refer to Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, and said he should be deported.Representative Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina, implied that Mr. Mamdani was somehow tied to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which occurred when he was 9. That came after Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, reacted on Wednesday to Mr. Mamdani’s apparent victory with an edited image of the Statue of Liberty clothed in a burqa.The responses to Mr. Mamdani’s electoral triumph were the latest examples of how far-right Republicans in Congress have become overt in their use of bigoted language and ethnically offensive tropes, in both casual comments and official statements.Mr. Mamdani, a three-term New York State assemblyman who is all but certain to win the Democratic primary for mayor, was born in Uganda and has lived in New York City since 1998, when he was 7 years old. He was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2018 and, if elected, would become the city’s first Muslim mayor.There is no credible evidence to suggest Mr. Mamdani is not, or shouldn’t be, a U.S. citizen. But his shock win put him on the national radar, and some Republicans in Congress are now seeking to undermine him using a strategy similar to the racist one that Donald J. Trump employed against former President Barack Obama by questioning whether he was born in the United States.Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee wrote that Zohran Mamdani needed to be deported.Jason Andrew 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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Lawmakers Cheer Strike on Iran as Top Democrats Condemn It

      by

      Republicans in Congress praised President Trump’s decision to hit Iran. Many Democrats and some G.O.P. lawmakers said he should have consulted Congress.Top Republicans in Congress swiftly rallied behind President Trump on Saturday after he ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, even as senior Democrats and some G.O.P. lawmakers condemned it as an unconstitutional move that could drag the United States into a broader war in the Middle East.In separate statements, the leading Republicans in Congress, Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, commended the military operation, calling it a necessary check on Iran’s ambitions of developing a nuclear weapon. Both men had been briefed on the military action before the strike was carried out, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly.Mr. Johnson and Mr. Thune both argued that the airstrikes were necessary after Iran had rejected diplomatic overtures to curb its nuclear program.“The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace,” Mr. Thune said.Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said that Iran rejected pathways to peace.Tierney L. Cross/The New York TimesMr. Johnson argued that the military action was consistent with Mr. Trump’s muscular foreign policy.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Official Rejects Food Aid Cuts Proposed by Republicans in Megabill

      by

      The ruling by the parliamentarian sent G.O.P. lawmakers back to the drawing board to cover the costs of President Trump’s domestic policy bill.A top Senate official on Friday night rejected a bid by Republicans to slash federal food aid payments as part of their sweeping legislation carrying President Trump’s domestic agenda, sending party leaders scrambling to find another way to help offset the massive cost of the bill.The measure passed by the House last month and on track to be considered in the Senate next week would cover part of the cost of extending and expanding large tax cuts by cutting social safety net programs including Medicaid and nutrition programs, including SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.Republicans are moving the bill through Congress using special rules that shield it from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must comply with a rigorous set of budgetary restrictions meant to ensure that it will not add to the deficit. And the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber’s leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, must evaluate such measures to ensure that every provision meets those requirements.Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, ruled that the SNAP measure, which would push some of the costs of nutrition assistance onto the states, did not. That sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill’s cost.She also said Republicans could not include a provision that would bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving SNAP benefits, according to Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee.The House-passed bill would require all states to pay at least 5 percent of SNAP benefit costs, and more if they reported a high rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. That provision was estimated to save roughly $128 billion.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

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Bill Would Make Deep Cuts to Medicaid, Setting Up Fight With House

      by

      The proposal would salvage some clean-energy tax credits and phase out others more slowly, making up some of the cost by imposing deeper cuts to Medicaid than the House-passed bill would.Senate Republicans on Monday released legislation that would cut Medicaid far more aggressively than would the House-passed bill to deliver President Trump’s domestic agenda, while also salvaging or slowing the elimination of some clean-energy tax credits, setting up a fight over their party’s marquee policy package.The measure, released by the Senate Finance Committee, contains the core provisions of that chamber’s version of the legislation that Republicans muscled through the House last month and are hoping to speed through the Senate and deliver to Mr. Trump’s desk by July 4. But its differences with that bill are substantial and are all but certain to complicate the measure’s path to enactment, casting doubt on that timetable.Most notably, the proposal would take a slower and less sweeping approach to phasing out clean-energy tax credits created during the Biden administration, and cover part of the cost of doing so by imposing deeper and more expansive cuts to Medicaid.While the House measure would add a new work requirement to Medicaid for childless adults, the Senate proposal would expand its application to the parents of older children. It also would crack down even harder than the House bill on strategies that many states have developed to tax medical providers and pay them higher prices for Medicaid services.In making the case for the bill, Republicans focused on another, far more politically popular element of the measure: its extension of tax cuts that were enacted in 2017 and are set to expire at the end of the year.A $7,500 tax credit for buyers of electric cars would phase out immediately within 180 days of the bill passing into law.Lauren Justice 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

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Proposal Ends Tax Cuts for Clean Energy, Disappointing Climate Advocates

      by

      A Senate tax package softens some blows imposed on renewables by a House version of the bill. But it still terminates many credits for clean power.Climate advocates, Democrats, and even some House Republicans who last month had supported a tax package that gutted federal support for clean energy were hoping the Senate would make fixes to protect energy manufacturing and jobs.But on Monday, Senate Republicans disappointed them, proposing to quickly end most tax breaks for wind and solar power, electric vehicles and other clean energy.Draft legislation released by the Senate Finance Committee would terminate or scale back most of the major tax incentives for clean energy contained in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Biden administration’s signature climate law.The plan would eliminate within six months a $7,500 consumer tax credit for purchases of electric vehicles as well as home energy rebates for things like electric heat pumps and induction stoves. A tax credit for homeowners who install solar panels on rooftops would end within 180 days. A subsidy for making hydrogen fuels would expire this year.Federal tax credits for wind and solar power, which have been in place for decades but were made more lucrative under the Inflation Reduction Act, would be rapidly phased out. Wind and solar companies could qualify for the full tax break only if they began construction in the next six months. They would receive 60 percent of the tax break if they began construction in 2026, and 20 percent of the tax credit if they began construction in 2027. Projects built after that would get nothing.That’s a slightly longer runway for renewable energy than is in the House version of the bill, which would have ended those tax breaks almost 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

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Pledge to Not Tax Overtime Could Become Federal Law

      by

      When President Trump first floated the idea of “no tax on overtime” at a campaign rally last year, he did not elaborate on how it would work. Could anyone who works more than 40 hours a week claim a tax break? Would overtime pay really be completely tax-free?The answer to both questions, as it turns out, is no.Under the sprawling domestic policy bill that Republicans pushed through the House and are preparing to steer through the Senate, the tax break would be limited. It would be available only to Americans who, under federal law, must be paid at a time-and-a-half rate for working any time exceeding 40 hours in a week. That’s a broad group that includes almost all Americans who are paid an hourly wage, but many salaried workers would not be eligible.And the tax relief would not be total. Americans would still owe payroll taxes, and potentially state income taxes, on their overtime pay. Federal income taxes would be eliminated on those wages, but only on the earnings attributable to the 50-percent bump in pay — only a third of the money made while working overtime.Even with those limitations, both critics and supporters of the idea believe the tax break could reshape the American labor market. The White House Council of Economic Advisers expects that the policy will motivate Americans to work more and help strengthen the economy.Skeptics think the change would primarily drive people to reclassify their earnings or even change jobs in order to file for overtime. They worry that if enough people sought jobs that offer overtime, wages in those positions could eventually fall.“Ultimately, it’s going to create unintended consequences that incentivize certain behaviors in the labor market and thus create winners and losers from that,” said Emmet Bowling, a labor policy analyst at the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. “Hourly jobs might become more desirable because of this tax deduction.”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