US Congress

Subterms

    Latest story

    188 Shares18 Views

    Why is the US House speaker refusing to seat an elected Democrat? | Moira Donegan

    by

    The people of Arizona’s seventh congressional district – a vast territory extending across the state’s south, along the Mexican border – have been denied representation in Congress for weeks. That’s because Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, has refused to swear in Adelita Grijalva, their representative-elect, who won a special election to fill the seat vacated by her father, the late Raúl Grijalva, in a landslide late last month. Grijalva, a Democrat, has been largely ignored by the speaker. Unlike sworn representatives, she has to go around the Capitol with an escort. There’s an office with her name on the door, but she hasn’t been allowed inside, and has worked instead out of a conference room on another floor.It is an unprecedented abuse of procedural power on the part of the speaker, one that has had the effect of silencing a political opponent and denying representation to the citizens of her district. In refusing to seat Grijalva, Johnson has defied the will of Arizona’s voters, and effectively nullified, at least for the time being, a legitimate congressional election. He has persisted in this even in defiance of his own promises, after saying on Friday he would seat her this week once the House returned to session – and then telling lawmakers they wouldn’t reconvene this week after all. Last week, Grijalva showed up to a three-and-a-half-minute pro forma session, hoping to be sworn in then. (Johnson has sworn in other representatives at pro forma sessions in the past.) But the Republican presiding over the session, Morgan Griffith, ignored the effort. On a weekend talkshow, Grijalva said she had heard “absolutely nothing” from the speaker about the timing of her swearing in.Grijalva thinks she knows why. There is no political calculation that could justify Mike Johnson’s refusal to seat a duly elected member of the House: Grijalva won her race, and both his oath to the constitution and his responsibilities to the body that he leads require Johnson to seat her. But in lieu of deference to these higher aims, Grijalva suspects that Johnson is pursuing a much more cynical one: in refusing to swear her in and allow her to take up the office to which she has been elected, Johnson, Grijalva thinks, is aiming to stop her becoming the final member of Congress whose signature is needed to force a vote on the release of confidential files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Currently, the petition has 217 signatures; it needs only 218. Grijalva has pledged to support it. “Why the rules are different for me – the only thing that I can think of is the Epstein files,” Grijalva told the New York Times.The Epstein scandal, and the ensuing fallout from new and resurfaced revelations about Donald Trump’s deep and longstanding friendship with the deceased child sex trafficker and financier, has long plagued the Trump administration. One of the few genuine threats to Trump’s grip over his coalition came a few months ago, when his justice department refused to release files relating to the case, causing outrage among a group of rightwing podcasters, media personalities and conspiracy theorists who had long traded on speculation about the case and accusations that powerful Democrats were involved in a cover-up.The discharge petition, if passed, would not be likely to result in the actual release of the documents. The move has little support in the Republican-backed Senate; there is no chance that Donald Trump, who has opposed the release of the Epstein files, calling them a “waste” of “time and energy”, would sign a bill into law making them public. But what the move would accomplish is forcing a full chamber vote on the matter, requiring every member of the Republican caucus to go on the record either endorsing the release of the files – and thereby displeasing Trump – or opposing it – thereby displeasing their voters. The Times has reported that Johnson’s delay is giving the White House more time to pressure Republicans who have already signed on to the discharge petition to remove their signatures before the Grijalva is sworn in.And so it seems that Johnson is ignoring the constitution and subverting the will of the voters in order to buy time, in an effort to spare his party embarrassment over their president’s one-time close confidence with a pedophile.But the refusal to seat Grijalva has broader implications. In using his procedural control over the functioning of Congress to deny a seat to an elected Democrat, Johnson is setting a dangerous precedent and raising questions about future transfers of power. If a Democratic majority is elected in 2026, will the outgoing Republican speaker duly swear in its members? Or will he use his procedural powers to delay one, several or many of them from taking their oaths of office – either under the pretext of election fraud or personal ineligibility, or out of sheer, bald unwillingness to hand over power to members of a party that the president and his allies have repeatedly described as illegitimate?These are no longer fanciful questions; they are ones that must be asked. The Republicans who refused to subvert the law for Trump’s benefit on January 6 are now largely gone; the ones who have replaced them appear much more willing to place party before country. Every day that Grijalva is not sworn in, the shadow they cast over 2026 darkens.

    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares18 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans vote against check on Trump using deadly force against cartels

      by

      Senate Republicans voted down legislation Wednesday that would have put a check on Donald Trump’s ability to use deadly military force against drug cartels after Democrats tried to counter the administration’s extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers to destroy vessels in the Caribbean.The vote fell mostly along party lines, 48-51, with two Republicans, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, voting in favor and the Democrat John Fetterman voting against.It was the first vote in Congress on Trump’s military campaign, which according to the White House has so far destroyed four vessels, killed at least 21 people and stopped narcotics from reaching the US. The war powers resolution would have required the president to seek authorization from Congress before further military strikes on the cartels.The Trump administration has asserted that drug traffickers are armed combatants threatening the United States, creating justification to use military force. But that assertion has been met with some unease on Capitol Hill.Some Republicans are asking the White House for more clarification on its legal justification and specifics on how the strikes are conducted, while Democrats insist they are violations of US and international law. It’s a clash that could redefine how the world’s most powerful military uses lethal force and set the tone for future global conflict.The White House had indicated Trump would veto the legislation, and even though the Senate vote failed, it gave lawmakers an opportunity to go on the record with their objections to Trump’s declaration that the US is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels.“It sends a message when a significant number of legislators say: ‘Hey, this is a bad idea,’” said the senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who pushed the resolution alongside Adam Schiff, a Democrat of California.Wednesday’s vote was brought under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was intended to reassert congressional power over the declaration of war.“Congress must not allow the executive branch to become judge, jury and executioner,” Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has long pushed for greater congressional oversight of war powers, said during a floor speech.Paul was the only Republican to publicly speak in favor of the resolution before the vote, but a number of Republican senators have questioned the strikes on vessels and said they are not receiving enough information from the administration.The senator Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, acknowledged “there may be some concern” in the Republican conference about the strikes. However, Republican leaders stridently argued against the resolution on the Senate floor Wednesday, calling it a political ploy from Democrats.“People were attacking our country by bringing in poisonous substances to deposit into our country that would have killed Americans,” said the senator Jim Risch, the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee. “Fortunately most of those drugs are now at the bottom of the ocean.”Risch thanked Trump for his actions and added that he hoped the military strikes would continue.Members of the Senate armed services committee received a classified briefing last week on the strikes, and Cramer said he was “comfortable with at least the plausibility of their legal argument”. But, he added, no one representing intelligence agencies or the military command structure for Central and South America was present for the briefing.“I’d be more comfortable defending the administration if they shared the information,” he said.Kaine also said the briefing did not include any information on why the military chose to destroy the vessels rather than interdict them or get into the specifics of how the military was so confident the vessels were carrying drugs.“Maybe they were engaged in human trafficking, or maybe it was the wrong ship,” Schiff said. “We just have little or no information about who was onboard these ships or what intelligence was used or what the rationale was and how certain we could be that everyone on that ship deserved to die.”The Democrats also said the administration has told them it is adding cartels to a list of organizations deemed “narco-terrorists” that are targets for military strikes, but it has not shown the lawmakers a complete list.“The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract debate about process,” the senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate armed services committee, said in a floor speech. “It is a real and present threat to our democracy.”The secretary of state Marco Rubio visited the Republican conference for lunch Wednesday to emphasize to senators that they should vote against the legislation. He told the senators that the administration was treating cartels like governmental entities because they had seized control of large portions of some Caribbean nations, according to the senator John Hoeven of North Dakota.Rubio told reporters at the Capitol: “These drug-trafficking organizations are a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States to unleash violence and criminality on our streets, fueled by the drugs and the drug profits that they make. … And the president, as the commander in chief, has an obligation to keep our country safe.”Still, Democrats said the recent buildup of US maritime forces in the Caribbean was a sign of shifting US priorities and tactics that could have grave repercussions. They worried that further military strikes could set off a conflict with Venezuela and argued that Congress should be actively deliberating whenever American troops are sent to war.Schiff said, “This is the kind of thing that leads a country, unexpectedly and unintentionally, into war.” More

    • 175 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      Bondi spars over Epstein but stays silent on Comey: takeaways from a tense hearing

      by

      In an often tense hearing before the Senate judiciary committee on Tuesday, the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, stood accused by Democrats of weaponizing the US Department of Justice, “fundamentally transforming” the department, and leaving “an enormous stain on American history” that it will take “decades to recover [from]”.Bondi criticized Democratic lawmakers in personal terms as she faced questions over the department’s enforcement efforts in Democratic-led cities, her mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, and inquiries into Donald Trump’s political adversaries. Here are the key takeaways from Bondi’s appearance.1. Democrats criticized Trump’s weaponization of the justice departmentBondi faced questions about her tenure at the department, as Democratic senators condemned the Trump administration for weaponizing the DoJ to investigate and prosecute Trump’s political enemies.“Our nation’s top law-enforcement agency has become a shield for the president and his political allies when they engage in misconduct,” Dick Durbin said. Durbin called Lindsey Halligan, the new US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia, part of a “network of unqualified mega-loyalists masquerading as federal prosecutors”.“Attorney General Bondi: in eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the justice department and left an enormous stain on American history. It will take decades to recover,” Durbin said.When asked by Amy Klobuchar whether she saw the president’s post on Truth Social, urging her to prosecute his political adversaries such as James Comey and Letitia James, as a “directive”, Bondi evaded the question.“President Trump is the most transparent president in American history,” Bondi said.She refused to “discuss personnel issues”, when Klobuchar asked about Bondi’s reported pushback to the president’s pressure campaign to remove Erik Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor. Bondi also refused to discuss the case against Comey, after Siebert said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the former FBI director.Adam Schiff said that the department, under Bondi’s leadership, had become Trump’s “personal sword and shield to go after his ever growing list of political enemies and to protect himself, his allies and associates”.Schiff is a noted adversary of the president, and served on the House select committee that investigated the Capitol insurrection. Bondi snapped at him when she refused to answer questions about the allegations against Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, for allegedly accepting $50,000 in bribes before Trump took office: “Deputy attorney general [Todd] Blanche and [FBI] director [Kash] Patel said that there was no evidence that Tom Homan committed a crime, yet now you’re putting his picture up to slander him.“If you worked for me, you would have been fired,” Bondi continued. “Will you apologize to Donald Trump for trying to impeach him?”2. Bondi refused to discuss the arrest of James ComeyIn a line of questioning by Richard Blumenthal, Bondi refused to discuss or disclose any conversations she may have had with the president in the lead-up to the indictment of Comey last month. Blumenthal said Bondi attended a dinner with Donald Trump, just days before the former FBI director was criminally charged.Bondi instead pushed back against the Democratic senator from Connecticut. “I find it so interesting that you didn’t bring any of this up during President Biden’s administration, when he was doing everything to protect Hunter Biden, his son,” she said.3. Bondi and Durbin sparred over EpsteinDurbin grilled Bondi as to why she made a public claim that the Epstein “client list” was “sitting” on her desk for review earlier this year, only to “produce already public information and no client list”.Bondi pushed back, saying she had “yet to review” the documents, and reaffirmed that there was no Epstein client list.Bondi sparred with Durbin, questioning why he “refused repeated Republican requests to release the Epstein flight logs in 2023 and 2024”. Durbin said Bondi’s claims were not accurate.“I did not refuse. One of the senators here wished to produce those logs, and I asked her to put it in writing, and she never did,” Durbin said, apparently referring to his Republican colleague Marsha Blackburn.4. Republicans focused on ‘Arctic Frost’ revelationsPam Bondi said that Operation Arctic Frost – an intelligence-gathering effort that led to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election – was “an unconstitutional, undemocratic abuse of power”.On Monday, several Republican lawmakers said the FBI gathered phone records from Republican senators. These records were obtained through a grand jury. Republicans have called this move part of the wider pattern of political weaponization of the previous administration.“This is the kind of conduct that shattered the American people’s faith in our government,” Bondi said at the hearing. “Our FBI is targeting violent criminals, child predators and other law breakers, not sitting senators who happen to be from the wrong political party.”Republican Josh Hawley also chimed in. “I’ve heard them say that Joe Biden never targeted his political enemies,” he said. “Huh? That’s interesting, because I could have sworn that yesterday we learned that the FBI tapped my phone.”5. Bondi said ‘national guard are on the way to Chicago’In a heated exchange with Durbin, Bondi refused to answer a question about whether she was consulted about Trump’s decision to send national guard troops to Illinois – the state that Durbin represents.“You voted to shut down the government, and you’re sitting here. Our law enforcement officers aren’t being paid. They’re out there working to protect you,” Bondi said, after declining to discuss internal conversations with the White House.“I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President Trump. Currently the national guard are on the way to Chicago. If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will.” More

    • 175 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Why does the supreme court keep bending the knee to Trump? | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Two 0f the world’s best-known authoritarian leaders – Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s prime minister, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s president – have each had at least 15 years at their country’s helm to pack the courts with loyalists and to pressure and intimidate judges. And no surprise, judges in those countries have repeatedly done what Orbán and Erdoğan want.Donald Trump has not had the opportunity to pack the US supreme court to nearly the same degree. Nor has he, despite his brash, bullying ways, done much to pressure or browbeat the court’s nine justices. Nevertheless, the court’s conservative supermajority has ruled time after time in favor of Trump since he returned to office. The six conservative justices have fallen into line much like Hungary’s and Turkey’s judges, even though the supreme court’s justices have life tenure to insulate them from political pressures.With the court’s new term beginning on Monday, many Americans are dismayed that the conservative justices have been so submissive to Trump, the most authoritarian-minded president in US history. Notwithstanding the US’s celebrated system of checks and balances, the justices have utterly failed to provide the checks on Trump that many legal scholars had expected. In ruling for Trump, the chief justice, John Roberts, and the other conservatives have let him gut the Department of Education, fire Federal Trade Commission and National Labor Relations Board members, and strip temporary protected status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The rightwing supermajority has also let Trump halt $4bn in foreign aid, fire tens of thousands of federal employees despite contractual protections and deport people to countries where they have no connection.In these and other cases, the supermajority has ceded huge power to Trump, for instance, by greatly reducing Congress’s constitutional power over spending as it let Trump unilaterally gut agencies and halt funding approved by Congress. What’s more, the court seems eager to snuff out independent, nonpartisan federal agencies by letting Trump fire agency chairs and commissioners without giving any reason, even though Congress approved laws explicitly saying those officials could only be dismissed for cause. (Pleasing corporate America, the court ordered last Wednesday that Lisa Cook can remain on the Federal Reserve Board, at least temporarily, while litigation proceeds over whether Trump can fire her as part of his effort to end the central bank’s independence.)“The chief justice is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America,” said J Michael Luttig, a highly regarded conservative former federal appellate judge.The conservative justices have repeatedly done Trump’s bidding even though they don’t begin to face the intense pressures that Hungary’s and Turkey’s judges face. Erdoğan has sometimes purged and blackballed judges seen as insufficiently loyal, while Orbán’s high-ranking allies have berated less obedient judges as “traitors”.The US supreme court has ruled for Trump in a startlingly high percentage of cases this year. It has issued 24 decisions from its emergency docket (often without giving any reasons) and ruled in Trump’s favor about 90% of the time.In doing so, the court has repeatedly vacated injunctions that lower courts had issued after concluding that Trump, with his 209 executive orders, had egregiously broken the law. Adam Bonica, a Stanford political science professor, found that in Trump administration cases decided between 1 May and 23 June, federal district courts ruled against Trump 94.3% of the time (82 out of 87 cases), often after looking closely at the facts. In contrast, the supreme court ruled 93.7% of the time for Trump (15 out of 16 cases), often without taking a close look at the facts.“The supreme court has pulled the rug out from under the lower federal courts, and it has done so deliberately and knowingly,” Luttig said, adding that the court is “acquiescing in and accommodating the president’s lawlessness”.With the court siding so often with Trump, a new Gallup poll found that a record high 43% of Americans think the court is too conservative, higher than the 36% who think the court is “about right”. Moreover, the court’s overall approval rating has fallen to its lowest level since Gallup began measuring, dropping below 40% for the first time in August (before climbing slightly) – and down from nearly 60% in the early 2000s.Steven Levitsky, a political science professor at Harvard and co-author of How Democracies Die, voiced bewilderment that the court has been so obliging toward a president who he says is a clear threat to democracy. According to Levitsky, courts come under the thumb of authoritarian governments in several ways. One way is “ideological agreement”. He said the court’s most rightwing members, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, seem in fundamental agreement with Trump, but he said the other conservatives do not love Trump even if they often rule for him. Levitsky suggested that those justices are so hostile toward liberals and liberal arguments that they gravitate towards Trump’s side in case after case.Court packing is another way courts fall under an authoritarian’s sway. Orbán, Erdoğan and their legislative allies have appointed the overwhelming majority of their countries’ judges, while Trump has appointed three of the nine justices. With life tenure, the justices should in theory feel free from political pressure and able to rule against Trump. In the past, many justices have ruled against the presidents and parties that appointed them.Levitsky sees another phenomenon at work: abdication. Pointing to both Congress and the supreme court, he said: “The major institutions that have the authority and responsibility to stand up and stop an authoritarian have declined to do so.”In his view, the conservative justices may have made a major miscalculation. “They are overconfident about the strength of our institutions,” Levitsky said. “They don’t really think our democracy is in danger. They don’t think it can really happen here. I really think a majority of members of the US establishment are in that camp.”The conservative justices have increasingly embraced the unitary executive theory, a once fringe, four-decade-old notion that the president has sole, unlimited authority over the executive branch and should, for instance, be free to fire members of independent agencies along with hundreds of thousands of federal employees. “If they really believed that Trump was a threat to democracy, they wouldn’t be giving him so much power,” Levitsky said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe court’s conservatives, Levitsky and many legal scholars say, are also engaged in appeasement. Roberts and the conservatives are “scared out of their minds that they will have to play chicken with Trump”, Levitsky said. “The worst thing for them is if the government ignores them and they don’t have any authority. They’re just terrified that Trump will trample on them and undermine their authority. Trump is not someone you want to play chicken with. They’re terrified of a big, high-profile fight with Trump.”In other words, the conservative justices are so eager to save face and avoid confrontation that they have often given a green light to what lower courts have seen as Trump’s lawlessness. Meanwhile, the three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – have written repeated, often angry dissents that chastise the supermajority for acquiescing to Trump’s lawlessness and steamrolling over parts of the constitution.One theory is that the conservative justices are deliberately giving Trump small victories – vacating lower courts’ injunctions and letting the president’s executive orders proceed and do their damage – as the justices wait for those cases to return to the supreme court, perhaps in a year or two. At that point, those cases would be fully briefed and argued, and the court would issue formal, longer rulings. Legal scholars hope, but are not optimistic, that the thus far compliant court will be more willing to defy Trump when the cases are fully briefed and argued, with the birthright citizenship and tariff cases most often mentioned.“What they’re doing,” Levitsky said, “is giving Trump small victories in an effort to placate him or preserve as much political capital for when the big fights come. It’s appeasement. Appeasement usually doesn’t work when you cede power to an authoritarian executive. It sends signals to society that no one is going to stop the guy. Ceding power to someone like Trump is really dangerous.”After Jair Bolsonaro, a rightwing Trump ally, was elected Brazil’s president in 2019, Alexandre de Moraes, a prominent member of Brazil’s supreme court, feared what he saw as Bolsonaro’s authoritarian tendencies. De Moraes cracked down on Bolsonaro’s efforts to spread disinformation on social media to undermine his opponents. When a mob of Bolsonaro’s allies stormed government buildings in January 2023, pushing for a coup d’etat, de Moraes led efforts to prosecute Bolsonaro. (Last month, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison after being convicted of plotting a coup.)“When Bolsonaro got elected, de Moraes realized that he’s a threat to democracy,” Levitsky said. “He thought that the Brazilian supreme court could be Chamberlain or Churchill.” (Neville Chamberlain, a British prime minister, agreed to let Adolf Hitler take over a German-speaking part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, as part of the Munich agreement, infamously declaring that the agreement would assure “peace for our time”.)“The [US] supreme court hasn’t wanted to be Churchill.” Levitsky said. “John Roberts has been Chamberlain. I think that is incredible destructive behavior.”

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labor and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 175 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      House speaker says Democrats aren’t serious about shutdown negotiation as Democratic leader blames Republicans

      by

      The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, accused Democrats of being “not serious” in negotiations to end the federal government shutdown, while the Democratic leader accused Republicans of driving the shutdown, now on its fifth day and expected to last at least through next week.Talks between the opposing political parties stalled over the weekend, with no votes anticipated to end the standoff. A CBS poll found just 28% of Democratic voters and 23% of Republicans consider their party’s positions worth shutting down the government.In his comments to NBC’s Meet the Press, Johnson said his body had done its work in passing a measure to keep the government financed but now it was up to the Senate “to turn the lights back on so that everyone can do their work”. He accused Democrats of failing to engage “in a serious negotiation”.“They’re doing this to get political cover because Chuck Schumer is afraid that he won’t win his next re-election bid in the Senate because he’s going to be challenged by a Marxist in New York, because that’s the new popular thing out there,” he said, referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Bronx representative who may be looking to challenge Schumer for his Senate seat next year.But Johnson’s counterpart, minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, told the same show JD Vance lied last week when he claimed Democrats were themselves being dishonest claiming they are not trying to give healthcare benefits to undocumented immigrants.“Republicans are lying because they’re losing in the court of public opinion,” Jeffries said, and added his party was “standing up for the healthcare of hard-working American taxpayers, of working-class Americans, of middle-class Americans”.Jeffries also hit back at comments by Donald Trump in a social media post on Thursday in which he called Democrats the party of “the party of hate, evil, and Satan” alongside pictures of party figures, including Ocasio-Cortez, Schumer, speaker emeritus Nancy Pelosi, and former president and first lady Joe and Jill Biden.Asked if he could still negotiate with Trump, Jeffries said the president’s behavior “is outrageous, it’s unhinged, it’s unreasonable, and it speaks for itself. The American people deserve better than lies, than attacks, than deepfake videos and the president spending all of his time on the golf course.”Leaders of the political leadership have not had formal talks for almost a week as both seek to gain a political edge ahead of renewed discussions.Jeffries said that since that meeting last Monday, “Republicans, including Donald Trump, have gone radio silent” and the Democratic party leadership “will continue to make clear, leader Schumer and myself, that we will sit down any time, any place, with anyone to address this issue with the seriousness that it deserves”.The battle for high political ground continued on Sunday with Johnson claiming that the potential for temporary government job suspensions, known as furloughs, hardening into permanent job layoffs “is a regrettable situation that the president does not want”.White House national economic council director Kevin Hassett increased pressure on Democrats, saying the Trump administration will start mass layoffs of federal workers if Trump decides negotiations with Democrats are “absolutely going nowhere”.Hassett told CNN’s State of the Union that Trump and Vought “are lining things up and getting ready to act if they have to, but hoping that they don’t”. But he predicted it is possible that Democrats could back down.“I think that everybody is still hopeful that when we get a fresh start at the beginning of the week, that we can get the Democrats to see that it’s just common sense to avoid layoffs like that,” Hassett said.But some fear Democrats have walked into a trap. Johnson said on Sunday that Trump had asked the Democratic leadership to keep the government open.“In a situation like this, where the Senate Democrats have decided to turn the keys to the kingdom over to the White House, they have to make tough decisions,” he said, pointing to Russ Vought, the director of the office of management and budget.Vought, Johnson said, “has to now look at all of the federal government, recognizing that the funding streams have been turned off and determine what are essential programs, policies, and personnel. That’s not a job that he relishes. But he’s being required to do it by Chuck Schumer.”The spirit of mutual recrimination continued with Schumer telling CBS Johnson “doesn’t want to discuss the real issue, the healthcare crisis facing the American people. So he puts up all these fake lies to try and divert attention.”But in an interview set to broadcast on Monday, Johnson told MSNBC he considers the issue of expiring healthcare subsidies – that Democrats place central to their negotiating position – as one that can be addressed later.“We have effectively three months to negotiate in the White House and in the hall of Congress, that’s like an eternity,” Johnson said. “We need folks in good faith to come around the table and have that discussion. And we can’t do it when the government is shut down,” he added.Adam Schiff, a California senator also speaking to Meet the Press, was asked if his party delegates in the Senate would stay united after three Democratic senators broke away to vote with Republicans. Schiff said he was confident that “all Democrats understand that millions and millions of their constituents are about to be priced out of their healthcare”.“We need a president who can act like an adult, who can come to the table and negotiate an end to their self-imposed healthcare crisis,” Schiff said. “Right now we don’t see that. We see Trump out on the golf course, we see the speaker telling his House colleagues not to even come to session, that there’s no work for the federal government to do, apparently.” More

    • 225 Shares59 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson hasn’t sworn in this new Democrat. Is it because she wants to release the Epstein files?

      by

      Congress’s newest member, Adelita Grijalva, came to Washington DC this week, expecting to be officially sworn in by the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.Two days later, she returned to her southern Arizona district disappointed, if not a little confused. No swearing-in ceremony had been organized, meaning Grijalva, a Democrat who easily won a special election last month to replace her late father, Raúl M Grijalva, was not able to start her new job.Trapped in the purgatorial status of representative-elect, she had to be escorted around the Capitol building by her soon-to-be-colleagues, like any other member of the public. Her name is on the door of her new office, but she does not have the keys.“I want to get to work and I can’t,” Grijalva said.She thinks she knows the reason why Johnson is in no rush to administer the oath: in addition to co-sponsoring bills on the environment, public education and other issues she campaigned on addressing, Grijalva plans to provide the final signature on a petition that would force a vote on legislation to release files related to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – which the speaker and Donald Trump oppose.“I can’t think of any other reason. It’s not like my being sworn in changes the majority,” she said.The matter of the Epstein files has for months been a thorn in the side of the president and his allies in Congress. Though Trump has decried it as a “Democrat hoax”, a small group of dissident Republicans have joined with all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives to pursue the legislative maneuver, known as a discharge petition. It just needs the signatures of 218 lawmakers to succeed, and has currently received 217 – Grijalva’s would be the last one.The petition is a rare instance of defiance among congressional Republicans, who have given Trump much of what he wants ever since he returned to the White House. But even if it succeeds and the legislation passes the House, it is unlikely to go far. The Senate’s Republican leaders have shown little interest in the issue, and it is difficult to imagine Trump signing the bill.Another complication, both for the petition and Grijalva’s hopes to taking her seat: the House was out of session all this week. Johnson last month called off planned work days to pressure Senate Democrats into voting for legislation the chamber has approved to fund the government and end the ongoing shutdown.However, the House did hold a three-and-a-half-minute procedural session on Tuesday – one Grijalva attended along with dozens of Democrats, in hopes of getting Johnson to swear her in. No luck, even though Johnson administered the oath to two Republicans who won special elections in Florida during a similar session earlier this year.“That doesn’t make sense, why I wouldn’t be sworn in, in the same pace that they were?” Grijalva said. “And who is losing out are the constituents that need a Congress to work for them.”A spokesperson for Johnson pointed to his comments signaling that Grijalva will be sworn in when the House returns to session, but that will not happen until funding is restored to the government.“The House will come back into session and do its work as soon as Chuck Schumer allows us to reopen the government,” Johnson said today, referring to the top Senate Democrat whom the Republicans blame for the funding lapse.Grijalva along with her family had planned to be in Washington again by Tuesday of next week, in hopes the House would be back to work. On Friday afternoon, Johnson announced that it would take the whole week off.“Now I have to change, blow up all of the travel plans that I made for everybody,” she said. “So, that’s frustrating.” More

    • 213 Shares54 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says Hamas is ready for peace and Israel ‘must immediately stop bombing of Gaza’ – live

      by

      Donald Trump just welcomed the response from Hamas to his peace plan, without worrying about the parts of it that the Palestinian movement said need to be negotiated further, and urged Israel to stop bombing Gaza “immediately” in a social media post that was shared by the White House.Trump, who is eager for a Nobel peace prize and appears ready to declare victory, wrote:
      Based on the Statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE. Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly! Right now, it’s far too dangerous to do that. We are already in discussions on details to be worked out. This is not about Gaza alone, this is about long sought PEACE in the Middle East.
      Yair Lapid, the former television anchor who leads Israel’s main opposition party, says that he has informed the White House that his party will support the government of Benjamin Netanyahu to close a peace deal in Gaza. The opposition’s support would be necessary to keep Netanyahu in power should far-right ministers in the governing coalition who want to continue the war withdraw from the government.“President Trump,” Lapid posted, “is right that there is a genuine opportunity to release the hostages and end the war. Israel should announce it is joining the discussions led by the president to finalize the details of the deal. I have told the US administration that Netanyahu has political backing at home to continue the process.”In a statement posted on social media, the Egyptian government, which has played a central role in negotiations with Hamas, has welcomed the Palestinian movement’s response to the plan announced this week by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.The statement thanks Trump for his vision to achieve peace and stability in the region, his “complete rejection” of the annexation of the Israeli-occupied West Bank by Israel or the displacement of the Palestinian people from their lands.Donald Trump just welcomed the response from Hamas to his peace plan, without worrying about the parts of it that the Palestinian movement said need to be negotiated further, and urged Israel to stop bombing Gaza “immediately” in a social media post that was shared by the White House.Trump, who is eager for a Nobel peace prize and appears ready to declare victory, wrote:
      Based on the Statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE. Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly! Right now, it’s far too dangerous to do that. We are already in discussions on details to be worked out. This is not about Gaza alone, this is about long sought PEACE in the Middle East.
      Donald Trump has posted the full text of the Hamas statement in response to his proposed plan to end the war in Gaza on his social media platform.The White House initially posted the text on X as well, but that post was removed without explanation, forcing anyone who wantws to read it to visit the president’s own platform.Donald Trump has just recorded an Oval Office video in response to what his White House press secretary calls “Hamas’ acceptance of his Peace Plan.”While the Hamas response to the Trump plan for an end to the war in Gaza signals a willingness to had over governance of the territory, it specifically says that the new government should be made up of Palestinian technocrats, not a foreign-run “board of peace” overseen by the US president.A few hours ago, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who rules over isolated sections of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, announced that Palestinian officials were drafting a temporary constitution for the state of Palestine, which includes Gaza, to be ready within three months.“We reaffirm our commitment to holding general presidential and parliamentary elections within one year after the end of the war,” Abbas said, according to the Palestinian news agency Wafa.Abbas has not stood for election since 2005, and there have been no elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council since 2006, when Hamas won a majority of seats in the West Bank and Gaza. In 2007, power-sharing between Hamas and Abbas collapsed and Hamas seized control of Gaza after armed conflict with forces loyal to the president.In a copy of the statement seen by Reuters, Hamas issued its response to Trump’s 20-point plan after the US president today gave the group until Sunday to accept or reject the proposal. Trump has not said whether the terms would be subject to negotiation, as Hamas is seeking.Notably, Hamas did not say whether it would agree to a stipulation that it disarm, a demand by Israel and the US that it has previously rejected.In its statement, Hamas said it “appreciates the Arab, Islamic, and international efforts, as well as the efforts of U.S. President Donald Trump, calling for an end to the war on the Gaza Strip, the exchange of prisoners, (and) the immediate entry of aid,” among other terms.It said it was announcing its “approval of releasing all occupation prisoners — both living and remains — according to the exchange formula contained in President Trump’s proposal, with the necessary field conditions for implementing the exchange.”But Hamas added: “In this context, the movement affirms its readiness to immediately enter, through the mediators, into negotiations to discuss the details.”The group said it was ready “to hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian body of independents (technocrats) based on Palestinian national consensus and supported by Arab and Islamic backing”.The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Hamas’ response to the proposal, which is backed by Israel as well as Arab and European powers.Among the 20 points in Trump’s plan are an immediate ceasefire, an exchange of all hostages held by Hamas for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, a staged Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the disarmament of Hamas and the introduction of a transitional government led by an international body.As we get more from Hamas’s statement trickling in, the group has said it has accepted some elements of Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan, including handing over administration of Gaza and releasing all the remaining hostages, but that it would seek further negotiations over many of its other terms.In its statement, Hamas says it appreciates the efforts of Arab, Islamic and international efforts, as well as the efforts of US president Donald Trump.I’ll bring you more from the statement as soon as we get it.Hamas has also agreed to hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip “to a Palestinian body of independent technocrats”, according to the statement. More

    • 225 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      US government shutdown: Donald Trump promises firings and cuts to ‘Democrats’ favorite projects’ if shutdown continues – live

      by

      President Donald Trump on Thursday said firings of federal workers and cuts to projects could occur if a government shutdown that began Wednesday continues, Reuters reports.“There could be firings, and that’s their fault,” Trump said of Democrats in Congress, when asked during an interview with OAN television network about a recent memo from the Office of Management and Budget that raised prospects of firings.“We could cut projects that they wanted, favorite projects, and they’d be permanently cut,” he said, adding “I am allowed to cut things that should have never been approved in the first place and I will probably do that.”My colleage Lauren Gambino has another key line from the Donald Trump interview that aired today on One America News:“A lot of people are saying Trump wanted this, that I wanted this closing, and I didn’t want it, but a lot of people are saying it because I’m allowed to cut things that should have never been approved in the first place, and I will probably do that,” Trump said.Federal authorities refuse to release a Michigan man in a pending deportation case, despite his life-threatening leukemia and the inconsistent health care he’s received while in custody since August, his lawyer said Thursday, according to the Associated Press.The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan is now seeking a bond hearing for Contreras-Cervantes, which could allow him to return to his Detroit-area family and doctors while his case winds through immigration court. He’s currently being held at a detention center about three hours away.Jose Contreras-Cervantes, a 33-year-old married father of three who has been living in the U.S. for about 20 years, but not legally, was arrested at a 5 Aug traffic stop in Macomb County, near Detroit. He had no criminal record beyond minor traffic offenses, said ACLU lawyer Miriam Aukerman.Contreras-Cervantes was diagnosed last year with chronic myeloid leukemia, a life-threatening cancer of the bone marrow, said his wife, Lupita Contreras.“The doctor said he has four to six years to live,” she said.Trump’s proposed “compact” with nine prestigious universities was offered to schools that were seen by Trump as “good actors”, May Mailman, a senior White House adviser told the Wall Street Journal yesterday, with a president or a board who were, in the Trump administration’s view, “reformer[s]” who have “really indicated they are committed to a higher-quality education.”The “compact” requires universities to eliminate departments that are seen as hostile or dismissive to conservatives, limit the proportion of international students on campus, accept the Trump administration’s definition of gender, and restrict the political speech of employees.Among the universities the Trump administration is wooing with promises of preferential federal funding in exchange for compliance with Trump’s values is the University of Southern California, a private research university with an $8.2 billion endowment.And even putting academic freedom aside, some of Trump’s proposals would be economically challenging for the University of Southern California, the Los Angeles Times reported.At USC, “26% of the fall 2025 freshman class is international,” the more than 50% of those students come from China or India, the Los Angeles Times reported. The Trump administration’s compact not only limits international student enrollment to 15% of students, but also requires that no more than 5% come from any one country.“Full-fee tuition from international students is a major source of revenue at USC, which has undertaken hundreds of layoffs this year amid budget troubles,” the Los Angeles Times noted.In threatening to cut state funding to any California university that cuts an ideological deal with Trump, California governor Gavin Newsom’s office called Trump’s proposed “compact” with nine leading American universities “nothing short of a hostile takeover of America’s universities.”“It would impose strict government-mandated definitions of academic terms, erase diversity, and rip control away from campus leaders to install government-mandated conservative ideology in its place,” Newsom’s office said in a statement. “It even dictates how schools must spend their own endowments. Any institution that resists could be hit with crushing fines or stripped of federal research funding.”Any California universities that sign the Trump administration’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” will “instantly” lose their state funding, California governor Gavin Newsom said in a statement.“If any California University signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding—including Cal Grants—instantly. California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom,” Newsom said in a statement. Trump offered nine prominent universities, including the University of Southern California, the chance to sign his “compact” yesterday, which asked that the universities close academic departments that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” limit the proportion of international undergraduate students to 15% , and ban the consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions, in exchange for “substantial and meaningful federal grants”.Newsom’s office said Trump’s offer to universities “ties access to federal funding to radical conservative ideological restrictions on colleges and universities.”President Donald Trump on Thursday said firings of federal workers and cuts to projects could occur if a government shutdown that began Wednesday continues, Reuters reports.“There could be firings, and that’s their fault,” Trump said of Democrats in Congress, when asked during an interview with OAN television network about a recent memo from the Office of Management and Budget that raised prospects of firings.“We could cut projects that they wanted, favorite projects, and they’d be permanently cut,” he said, adding “I am allowed to cut things that should have never been approved in the first place and I will probably do that.”The government shutdown will likely go into next week, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune telling Politico that it is “unlikely” senators will be in the Capitol voting this weekend.“They’ll have a fourth chance tomorrow to vote to open up the government, and if that fails, we’ll give them the weekend to think about it, and then we’ll come back and vote on Monday,” the Republican senator said.Thune also reiterated he will not negotiate the Affordable Care Act tax credits, which has been the point of contention leading to the government shutdown.Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer previously said that Republicans need to work with Democrats “to reach an agreement to reopen the government and lower healthcare costs.”The Trump administration is considering giving at least $10bn in aid to US farmers, as the agriculture industry begins to grapple with an economic fallout due to Trump’s tariffs, the Wall Street Journal reports.The Journal reports that the Trump administration is considering using revenue from tariffs to fund the aid provided to US farmers and may start to be distributed in the coming months.The deliberations are reportedly still ongoing and the deal to give billions for US farmers has not been finalized. A potential negotiation with China in the coming weeks may change Trump’s calculation to provide aid to the farmers.House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the Trump administration has done “nothing” to lower the high cost of living for people in the US, while at the same time giving the wealthy significant tax breaks.“The Trump tariffs are actually making life more expensive,” Jeffries said. “And now Republicans refuse to do anything to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credit.”House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused the Trump administration and Republicans of desiring a government shutdown.“They want to inflict on the American people, they continue to engage in their retribution efforts,” Jeffries said. “And they have zero interest in providing high-quality, affordable and accessible care to everyday Americans.”House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries called Trump’s behavior “unserious and unhinged.”Ahead of the looming shutdown, Trump shared a racist video on his Truth Social account on Tuesday, depicting Jeffries wearing a sombrero and mustache, while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke in a fake, AI-generated voice.House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said “Republicans have shown zero interest in even having a conversation” to come to a government funding agreement.Jeffries added Democrats are willing to meet with Republicans, including Trump and vice-president JD Vance, to come to an agreement.House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries blamed Republicans for the government shutdown during a press conference.“This is day two of Donald Trump’s shutdown, but it’s day 256 of the chaos that the Trump presidency has unleashed on the American people,” Jeffries said. “Republicans have shut the government down because they don’t want to provide healthcare to working class Americans.”The Trump administration is seeking to strike deals with companies across 30 different industries deemed critical to national or economic security, Reuters reports, in a concerted push before next year’s midterm elections. In some cases, the Trump administration is offering tariff relief in exchange for concessions.Reuters reports that pharmaceutical companies have been contacted by the White House and top Trump administration officials to strike potential deals. For example, Eli Lilly was asked to produce more insulin, Pfizer was asked to produce more cancer and cholesterol medications and AstraZeneca was asked to consider moving its headquarters from London to the US.The administration’s plan to strike deals with companies is an effort to push companies to further Trump’s goal of moving manufacturing to the United States, reducing dependence on China, strengthening supply chains for critical products and contributing to the government’s coffers, according to Reuters. It is an all-out effort to secure wins before next year’s midterms.The administration has reached out to companies working in the pharmaceutical, semiconductor, AI, mining, energy and other industries.This week, Trump announced a deal with Pfizer to cut drug prices in exchange for relief from looming tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals.WIC, the federal program that provides free, healthy food to low-income pregnant women, new mothers and children under five, could run out of funds if the government shutdown persists, NBC News reports.The program serves some 6.8 million people. According to the National WIC Association, “devastating disruptions” may deny millions of moms and children access to nutritious foods if the government remains closed for longer than a week or two, as contingency funds from the USDA will have dried up by then.“Historically, when there has been a shutdown, WIC has remained open for business, but because this one falls at the start of the fiscal year, there are some risks,” Georgia Machell, president of the National WIC Association, told NBC. She called on Congress to pass a funding bill that protects the program and keeps it running without interruption.A USDA spokesperson told the outlet that WIC’s continued operation will depend on “state choice and the length of a shutdown”.Meanwhile, some administration officials are privately warning agencies against mass firings during the shutdown, the Washington Post (paywall) reports.Senior federal officials are telling agencies not to fire employees en masse, warning that it may violate appropriations law and be vulnerable to challenges from labor unions, the Post reports citing two anonymous sources.Senate majority leader John Thune told Politico last night that Democrats folding is the only way he sees the shutdown ending.His comments were echoed House speaker Mike Johnson, who earlier told reporters this morning, “I have quite literally nothing to negotiate,” and insisted that Democrats should support the “clean” continuing resolution.Per Politico’s report, Thune “insisted he would not negotiate on the substance of an extension [to Obamacare subsidies] while the government is closed. But pressed on whether he was open to discussions with Democrats about how the health care negotiations might work post-shutdown or how to advance full-year appropriations bills, he said, ‘We are.’”
      Some of those conversations are happening. With our members and their members there’s a lot of back-and-forth going on right now about some of the things they would like to see happen.
      Thune also said it’s “unlikely” that there will be Senate votes this weekend, meaning the shutdown is likely to last for at least six days. He told Semafor this morning:
      They’ll have a fourth chance tomorrow to open up the government. If that fails, we’ll give them the weekend to think about it. We’ll come back vote again Monday.
      Venezuela’s defense minister General Vladimir Padrino said on Thursday that five combat planes had been detected near country’s coast, in what he characterized as a threat by the United States.“They are imperialist combat planes that have dared to come close to the Venezuelan coast” Padrino said at an air base, in comments broadcast on state television, saying information about the planes had been reported to a control tower by an airline. “The presence of these planes flying close to our Caribbean Sea is a vulgarity, a provocation, a threat to the security of the nation.”The US has deployed a fleet of warships through the Caribbean, which Washington says is to combat drug trafficking, and has also struck several boats it claims were carrying drugs from Venezuela, killing those aboard. Experts have questioned the legality of the strikes.Earlier, we reported that Trump has declared drug cartels operating in the Caribbean are unlawful combatants and said the US is now in a “non-international armed conflict”, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press.The US military last month carried out three deadly strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. At least two of those operations were carried out on vessels that originated from Venezuela.On Monday, Venezuela’s vice-president said Nicolás Maduro was ready to declare a state of emergency in the event of a US military attack on the country, and warned of “catastrophic” consequences if such an onslaught materializes.Hamas will demand key revisions to Donald Trump’s Gaza ceasefire proposal but is likely to accept the plan in coming days as a basis for renewed negotiations, analysts and sources close to the group have told my colleague and Guardian international security correspondent Jason Burke.Trump imposed a deadline of “three or four days” from Tuesday for Hamas to give its response to his 20-point plan, which aims to bring the two-year war in Gaza to a close and allow an apparently indefinite international administration of the devastated territory, or “pay in hell”.Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist from Gaza based in Cairo, said Hamas now had to “choose between the bad and the worst”. “If they say ‘no’, as Trump has made clear, that will not be good and will allow Israel to do whatever it takes to finish this. They will say “yes, but we need this and that”, Abusada said.Hamas leaders are divided between Istanbul, Doha and Gaza, which complicates discussions on the group’s response. Turkey and Qatar are putting pressure on Hamas to make concessions.One sticking point is the plan’s demand that Hamas disarm, a source close to the organisation said. The surrender of all weapons would be very difficult for Hamas to accept, especially without any political process or substantial progress towards a two-state solution.Another concern for Hamas is the vague promise of Israeli withdrawals, though the clear statement that there will be no annexation or occupation of Gaza by Israel was welcomed by one source close to Hamas.Hugh Lovatt, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said it would be very difficult for Hamas to accept the terms unconditionally. “That is understandable. The text lacks details. But then anything other than total and final acceptance will be used against Hamas by Israel, the Trump administration and possibly the Europeans,” he said.You can read Jason’s full piece here: More

    • 188 Shares88 Views

      in US Politics

      Travel, national parks and housing: what does the US government shutdown mean for everyday people?

      by

      Since the US government shut down Wednesday at midnight, tens of thousands of federal workers have been furloughed (told not to work), while others must work without pay until Congress passes a budget. The shutdown will have a wide range of effects on government services and programs as well as the US economy.Here’s what it means for everyday people:1. Paychecks and federal workersWho keeps working?“Excepted” government workers, employees whose work is deemed essential to protecting life and property, such as military personnel, border agents, TSA screeners and FBI agents, will remain at work without pay for as long as the shutdown continues. Some federal workers will continue to work with pay, particularly employees with the Veterans Health Administration and mail carriers, because the US Postal Service is an independent entity that generally relies on revenue from its products and services, not tax dollars.Large portions of several agencies are furloughed, meaning they are not working or being payed because their jobs are not considered “essential” to immediate government operations.All federal employees who are furloughed or required to work without pay during a government shutdown will receive back pay, under a law passed in 2019. Government contractors, however, are not guaranteed back pay for time lost during a government shutdown.How many people are affected?Hundreds of thousands of workers are impacted by the shutdown.According to official government data, the impact of furloughs varies widely across agencies. The EPA was expected to be hit hardest, with 89% of its staff furloughed, although there has been confusion among the agency and employees say they are still reporting to work without pay. The Department of Education follows closely behind at 87% and the Department of Commerce at 81%. The Department of Labor also sees a large share, with 76% of its employees sidelined, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has 71% furloughed.At the state department, 62% of the workforce is out, while the Department of the Interior stands at 53%. Roughly half of agriculture employees (49%) are affected, along with 45% of civilian defense department staff and 41% of health and human services workers.The Department of Homeland Security is only 5% furloughed, but most staff remains unpaid until funding returns. The VA estimates that 97% of its employees would continue to work during a shutdown.2. Travel and transportationWill my flight still take off?Yes. Air traffic controllers and TSA officers are still working, but without pay. Expect possible long lines or delays if staffing becomes strained.Can I get a passport or visa?Yes, passport and visa services continue, but delays are possible if the shutdown drags on.3. Benefits and healthWill I still get social security, Medicare or Medicaid?Yes. Benefits continue, but customer service (like benefit verification or replacement cards) may be delayed.Will I still get Snap (food stamps) or WIC (special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children)?Yes, these nutrition programs continue.What about healthcare and research?The National Institute of Health (NIH) hospital stays open for current patients, but will not admit new ones unless medically necessary. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will continue some inspections, but new drug/device approvals are expected to slow down. New research grants are frozen.4. National parksCan I visit a national park?It depends. According to the interior department, “park roads, lookouts, trails, and open-air memorials will generally remain accessible to visitors”, but visitor services are limited due to reduced staffing.Some campgrounds and remote sites may shut down entirely. If conditions worsen due to lack of workers, more parks could be closed. Tours of sites such as the US Capitol and the FBI will likely be suspended indefinitely.5. Smithsonian museumsAre the Smithsonian museums open?The Smithsonian Institution, which includes museums, research centers, and the National zoo in Washington DC will stay open through at least Monday, 6 October using “prior-year funds”, the institution shared in a press release. It remains unclear whether they will remain open past that day should the shutdown continue, but updates will be posted on the website.What about the Kennedy Center?In a statement to NPR, a spokesperson said: “The Center’s programming will not be impacted by a shutdown. Federal employees like plumbers will not be impacted either,” The spokesperson credited Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included a $257m budget for repairs and restoration for the center, as the reason workers will not be affected.6. HousingHow is the housing market affected?The housing crisis is likely to intensify as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ceases much of its work in housing fairness, according to Sharon Cornelissen, director of Housing at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA).“This government shutdown will further paralyze HUD and cease the little fair housing work it was still doing,” Cornelissen said in a statement. “Thousands of home closings will grind to a halt – consumers in flood zones will be unable to buy or sell homes – as funding for the National Flood Insurance Program runs out.”She added: “Broad, affordable, and fair access to housing is impossible without a well-functioning government, but this administration has done nothing but undermine the essential housing programs and protections that people across the US rely on every day.”7. Consumer protectionsWhat about other implications for consumers?Since the start of the Trump administration, watchdog agencies and regulators have faced major staffing cuts and financial constraints. Experts warn the shutdown could compound the government’s ability to protect consumers.“This shutdown is not just political theater, it’s a continuation of the relentless assault on consumer protection,” said Erin Witte, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. “By halting the very agencies that safeguard families from predatory lenders, unfair fees and corporate abuse, the administration is abandoning Americans at the height of a widespread affordability crisis.”8. In summary

      You’ll still get your social security and Medicare.

      Flights will keep going, but with unpaid and possibly limited staff.

      Most parks will remain open, but will probably be under-maintained.

      Smithsonian museums and the National zoo are open through at least 6 October.

      Federal workers are the hardest hit, withmany being unpaid or furloughed.

      Consumer protections, which have already been hit hard by cuts, are at risk of incapacity. More