US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US House Republicans propose fees on immigrants to fund Trump’s crackdown

      by

      Congressional Republicans are proposing an array of new fees on immigrants seeking to remain in the United States in a move that advocates warn will create insurmountable financial barriers.Legislation moving through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives could require immigrants to pay potentially hundreds or thousands of dollars to seek asylum, care for a minor in the government’s custody, or apply for humanitarian parole.Republican lawmakers have described the fees as necessary to offset the costs of Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. But experts who work with immigrants say putting more economic pressure on people attempting to navigate US immigration laws could drain what little money they have, force them into exploitative work arrangements, or push them to leave the country altogether.“These are essentially a mask for targeted attacks towards some of the most vulnerable immigrants that we currently have going through our legal system right now: asylum seekers, children, survivors of crimes,” said Victoria Maqueda Feldman, director of legal programs at Ayuda, which assists low-income immigrants in Washington DC, Virginia and Maryland.Trump has made it a priority of his administration to not only rid the country of undocumented immigrants, but also to stop many new immigrants from entering the country. The GOP-controlled Congress is negotiating what he has dubbed “one big, beautiful bill”, a huge spending and taxation package that includes provisions to turn his hardline immigration proposals into reality.Republicans are limited in what they can accomplish in Congress due to the Senate’s filibuster, which the Democratic minority can use to block legislation it does not support. The GOP is seeking to enact Trump’s legislative agenda through the budget reconciliation procedure, under which bills can pass with simple majorities in both chambers but must affect only spending and revenues – like fees.“This system has left these agencies with funding shortfalls paid for by American taxpayers,” said Jim Jordan, the Republican chair of the House judiciary committee. “The fees included in this bill will … allow us to make the necessary investments in immigration enforcement in a fiscally responsible manner.”Heidi Altman, vice-president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, said the new fees appeared targeted at the sorts of immigrants that the Trump administration has prioritized keeping out, such as asylum seekers, who arrived in large numbers during Joe Biden’s term.“It’s part of the administration’s assault on humanitarian protections for immigrant communities,” Altman said. “This is an entire new way of thinking about fees as a penalty, essentially, for an immigrant status.”Under the bill, immigrants would have to pay $1,000 to apply for asylum, $100 to keep an application active each year as it makes it through the overburdened immigration system, and $550 for a work permit. People requesting humanitarian parole to enter the United States would have to pay $1,000, and abused or neglected children who qualify for a program called Special Immigrant Juvenile Status would have to pay $500. Immigration cases can take a long time to resolve in court, but if a defendant asks a judge for a continuance, they would have to pay $100 each time.These fees do not exist under current law, and the bill specifies they cannot be waived in almost all circumstances.The new fees are targeted at people, often relatives, who seek to sponsor children who crossed the border without a parent or guardian and wind up in the government’s care. In order to take custody of an unaccompanied minor, adults would have to pay $3,500 to partially pay back the government for the minor’s care, along with another $5,000 to ensure the child attends their court hearings, though that money can be reimbursed if they do.“In some cases, that would be placing $3,500 between a mother or a father being able to get their child out of government custody and back into their own home,” Altman said.The fees were proposed as the Trump administration looks for novel ways to push immigrants out, including by offering them cash to leave. The bill gives a preview of what more will come, should the president receive the tens of billions of dollars he has requested from Congress.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMore than $50bn is allocated in the legislation to construct a wall along the border with Mexico, as well as fortifications elsewhere. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) will receive $45bn for detention facilities, $14bn for its deportation operations and billions of dollars more to hire 10,000 new agents by 2029.For the low-income clients Ayuda serves, Feldman predicted that the fees “could amount to a complete barrier to forms of relief”.Some might be able to pull together the money, but “through means that could put them in greater danger. So, having to work under the table, putting them at risk for labor trafficking. They might have to take out loans that have very high interest rates, putting them at risk for having to pay off something that is very expensive.”The bill is a top priority of congressional Republicans, but its pathway to enactment is unclear. On Friday, rightwing Republican lawmakers blocked its progress through a key House committee, arguing it did not cut government spending deeply enough.Last month, when the judiciary committee met to approve the portion of the bill that included the fee increases, GOP lawmakers approved it quickly, with little signs of dissent. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      House Republicans block Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ in major setback

      by

      Rightwing lawmakers derailed Donald Trump’s signature legislation in the House of Representatives on Friday, preventing its passage through a key committee and throwing into question whether Republicans can coalesce around the massive bill.The party has spent weeks negotiating a measure dubbed the “one big, beautiful bill” that would extend tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term, fund mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, and temporarily make good on his campaign promise to end the taxation of tips and overtime. To offset its costs, Republicans have proposed cuts to the federal safety net, including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.At a House budget committee hearing on Friday intended to advance the measure one step closer to a floor vote, four Republican members of the far-right Freedom Caucus joined with the Democratic minority to block it from proceeding, arguing the legislation does not make deep enough cuts to federal spending and to programs they dislike.“This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does, with respect to deficits,” said Chip Roy, a Texas representative who opposed the bill alongside fellow Freedom Caucus members Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Ralph Norman of South Carolina. Pennsylvania’s Lloyd Smucker initially voted to advance the bill, then changed his vote to no at the last minute, which he said was a procedural maneuver to allow the bill to be reconsidered in the future.The setback raises the stakes for the House speaker, Mike Johnson, who had set a goal of Memorial Day to get the legislation passed through the House and on to the Senate. Trump has said he would like to have the bill on his desk by the 4 July Independence Day holiday, and earlier on Friday attempted to pressure conservative holdouts.“Republicans MUST UNITE behind, ‘THE ONE, BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!’” the president wrote on Truth Social. “We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE!”Later on Friday, the budget committee announced it would reconvene on Sunday night to consider the bill, giving Johnson another couple of days to find agreement with the hardliners.Republicans are crafting the bill using the budget reconciliation procedure, which Senate Democrats cannot block with the filibuster. But the GOP is split over what to include and what to cut in the expensive legislation, which Congress’s non-partisan joint committee on taxation estimates will cost $3.7tn through 2034.Rightwing lawmakers want to see big reductions in government spending, which has climbed in recent years as Trump and Joe Biden responded to the Covid-19 pandemic and pursued their own economic policies.“We’re … committed to ensuring the final package is fiscally responsible, rightsizing government and putting our fiscal future back on track. Unfortunately, the current version falls short of these goals and fails to deliver the transformative change that Americans were promised,” Clyde said at the budget committee.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe called for deeper cuts to Medicaid, but many Republicans in the House and Senate have signaled nervousness with dramatic funding reductions to the program that provides healthcare to lower-income and disabled Americans. Others in the GOP dislike parts of the bill that would cut green tax credits created by Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.And a small group of Republicans representing districts in blue states such as New York and New Jersey are demanding an increase in the deduction for state and local taxes, saying it will provide needed relief to their constituents. But including that would drive the cost of the bill even higher, risking the ire of fiscal conservatives.Johnson has little choice but to listen to all of these groups. The GOP can afford to lose no more than three votes in the chamber, a historically small margin that has made passing legislation a tightrope walk. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican push to cut green tax credits would raise utility bills, new data shows

      by

      As House Republicans propose taking a sledgehammer to the green tax credits in Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, new data shows the loss of those incentives could lower some Americans’ household income by more than $1,000 a year due to increased utility bills and job losses.Though Donald Trump has called climate spending a “waste” of money, the data – published by the industry group Clean Energy Buyers Association (Ceba) on Thursday – provides evidence that rescinding them would actually increase expenses for ordinary Americans in red and blue districts alike.The rollback would increase the price of electricity and gas, the report found. And it would lead to job losses and “economic slowdown”, it says.“Americans voted to combat the cost-of-living crisis in the 2024 election,” said Rich Powell, CEO of Ceba. “Now is the time for Congress to incentivize private investment in more sources of low-cost, reliable energy that fuels economic growth and jobs, helps the United States secure energy dominance and independence, and decreases energy costs nationwide.”The new figures, crunched for Ceba by the National Economic Research Associates consulting firm, focus specifically on credits 48E and 45Y, for clean energy investment and production respectively. In a reconciliation package draft this week, the House ways and means committee proposed phasing out these incentives after 2031, and placing many new restrictions on them in the meantime.If the rollbacks proceed as proposed, the new study found, at least 19 states would see the cost of energy increase for both consumers and industry between 2026 to 2032. (More states would probably see similar impacts, but the authors did not examine all 50 “because of the turnaround time for research”, Ceba said).New Jersey is the state expected to see the biggest economic losses if the clean energy investment and production credits are repealed, the authors found. There, the authors found the rollback could increase household gas and utility bills by 2.9% and 13.3% respectively. The repeal would also trigger the loss of 22,180 jobs, they found.All told, households across the state would see a stunning $1,040 average loss in annual household income and a $3.24bn decrease in state GDP, the authors wrote.“As commercial and industrial activity declines, demand for labor and capital falls, leading to wage losses, declining household income, and shrinking investment,” the research says.The authors’ outlook for state-level electricity markets assumes an incremental growth in electricity demand due to the growth of data centers. Some of Ceba’s members are tech giants – including Amazon, Google and Meta – who are bringing more data centers online.An earlier Ceba report, published in February, forecast the effect on electricity prices alone across all 50 states. If the clean energy investment and production credits are repealed, the average American household would see their annual household utility bills increase by $110 by 2026, it found.Wyoming would see the largest rise of 29.5% on average for households across the state, the earlier report found. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Stephen Miller is wrong: the president can’t just suspend habeas corpus | Austin Sarat

      by

      The writ of habeas corpus is much older than the US constitution. That writ, which enables people detained by the government to challenge their detention in court, has been regarded as an essential bulwark of liberty in the English-speaking world since the 15th century.In this country, Alexander Hamilton said the writ of habeas corpus provides “greater security to liberty and republicanism” than any other provision in the constitution. And in his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson called the protections provided by habeas corpus one of the “essential principles of our Government”.But you would never know that from what Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, said on Friday. Talking to reporters outside the White House, Miller reported that the administration was “actively looking at” the possibility of suspending the writ of habeas corpus for people who are in the country illegally.What Miller said suggests he is either ignorant about the constitution or he just doesn’t care. Either way, the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is vested in Congress, not the president.Miller’s comments should be a wake-up call for Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, and John Thune, the Republican majority leader in the Senate. By defending Congress’s prerogatives, the Republican leaders could defuse another brewing constitutional crisis – and act in line with what the founders of the American republic would want.Miller’s remarks come after a string of defeats in federal courts over the arbitrary way Trump and his colleagues have handled what they see as the crisis of illegal immigration. And now Miller seems to think that the president can unilaterally strip those people of a right guaranteed to everyone in the government’s custody, regardless of their citizenship status.“Well”, he observed, “the constitution is clear – and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land – that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion.” Yesterday, the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, joined Miller in claiming that the level of illegal border crossings under Joe Biden counted as a constitutional reason to suspend the right.They are right that the writ can be suspended.But, whatever one thinks about what Biden did when he was in office, there is no invasion. The Department of Homeland Security itself says that the first 100 days of the Trump administration have produced “The Most Secure Border in American History”.And even if there was, the constitution’s text suggests that the president cannot suspend what Miller called the “privilege” of habeas corpus. The suspension clause is in article I of the constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, not in article II, which deals with the executive branch.The language of the constitution also makes clear that the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended only if Congress determines that there is a “Rebellion or Invasion” and that “the public Safety may require it”.Looking back at the constitutional convention is also instructive. The convention considered but did not adopt the following language: “The privileges and benefits of the writ of habeas corpus … shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time …”Instead, the convention adopted the language of article I, section 9, that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” And in 1807, Chief Justice John Marshall cleared up any doubt about which branch of government could suspend habeas corpus.He wrote: “If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.” Joseph Story, a prominent early commentator on the constitution and the convention that proposed it, also confirmed that “the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion.”In fact, the writ of habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in American history. The first time was in 1861 when President Lincoln, acting without congressional authority, suspended it in Maryland, a border state, to address potential threats to the capital.Habeas corpus was also suspended in South Carolina in places that were overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in the Philippines during an insurrection against US rule in 1905; and in Hawaii following the bombing of Pearl Harbor.With respect to Lincoln’s unilateral action, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled it was unconstitutional, saying about the suspension clause: “Congress is of necessity the judge of whether the public safety does or does not require it; and its judgment is conclusive.” Since then, the supreme court has consistently reiterated Taney’s view.For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when suspected terrorists were held without trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens wrote: “the Constitution’s Suspension Clause … allows Congress to relax the usual protections temporarily.”It is time for Republican congressional leaders to look in the mirror. Five years ago, senator Thune claimed that “Republicans believe in … the Constitution, and that’s what dictates what happens.” Similarly, speaker Johnson’s website proudly proclaims: “Each branch of government must adhere to the Constitution, and… Congress must faithfully perform its constitutional responsibility.”They should live up to those pronouncements and heed Story’s admonition that “the practice of arbitrary imprisonments has been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.” Now would be a good time for them to tell the president that they will not allow him to ignore the constitution and usurp a power that it assigns exclusively to Congress.

      Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 hundred books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans propose prohibiting US states from regulating AI for 10 years

      by

      Republicans in US Congress are trying to bar states from being able to introduce or enforce laws that would create guardrails for artificial intelligence or automated decision-making systems for 10 years.A provision in the proposed budgetary bill now before the House of Representatives would prohibit any state or local governing body from pursuing “any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems” unless the purpose of the law is to “remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the deployment or operation of” these systems.The provision was a last-minute addition by House Republicans to the bill just two nights before it was due to be marked up on Tuesday. The House energy and commerce committee voted to advance the reconciliation package on Wednesday morning.The bill defines AI systems and models broadly, with anything from facial recognition systems to generative AI qualifying. The proposed law would also apply to systems that use algorithms or AI to make decisions including for hiring, housing and whether someone qualifies for public benefits.Many of these automated decision-making systems have recently come under fire. The deregulatory proposal comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed by several state attorneys general against the property management software RealPage, which the lawsuit alleges colluded with landlords to raise rents based on the company’s algorithmic recommendations. Another company, SafeRent, recently settled a class-action lawsuit filed by Black and Hispanic renters who say they were denied apartments based on an opaque score the company gave them.Some states have already inked laws that would attempt to establish safeguards around these systems. New York, for instance, passed a law that required automated hiring systems to undergo bias assessments. California has passed several laws regulating automated decision-making, including one that requires healthcare providers to notify patients when they send communications using generative AI. These laws may become unenforceable if the reconciliation bill passes.“This bill is a sweeping and reckless attempt to shield some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world – from big tech monopolies to RealPage, UnitedHealth Group and others – from any sort of accountability,” said Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. The new language is in line with Trump administration actions that aim to remove any perceived impediments to AI development. Upon taking office, Donald Trump immediately revoked a Biden administration executive order that created safety guardrails for the deployment and development of AI. Silicon Valley has long held that any regulation stifles innovation, and several prominent members of the tech industry either joined or backed the US president’s campaign, leading the administration to echo the same sentiment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“State lawmakers across the country are stepping up with real solutions to real harms – this bill is a pre-emptive strike to shut those down before they gain more ground,” Hepner said. More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s Hollywood ambassador Jon Voigt joins coalition asking for tax incentives

      by

      Donald Trump’s Hollywood ambassadors, including actor Jon Voight, joined labor unions and major studios in asking the US president to expand and extend tax incentives for film and television productions.In a letter addressed to Trump on Sunday, the studios and unions did not mention his threat to introduce 100% tariffs on films made abroad, but instead thanked him for supporting the industry through their “shared goal” of domestic production.“We appreciate and thank you for the support you have shown our industry. We also appreciate your understanding of the need to increase domestic film and television production to bring back American jobs,” the letter read.The letter also calls for Trump to back three tax provisions in the upcoming budget reconciliation bill being drafted by Congress that it argues would “immediately make America more competitive, expand the American media industry, brings jobs back to America, and support the independent spirit of American business”.They include reviving section 199 of the tax code, which provided deductions for manufacturing to film and TV production, expanding section 181 to double to $30m in production expenditures, and restoring the section 461 ability to allow companies to carry back their net operating losses.The letter was signed by the Motion Picture Association, which represents Hollywood studios, and unions including Sag-Aftra, the Writers Guild of America, the Directors Guild of America, the Teamsters, as well as Voight and actor Sylvester Stallone, two of Trump’s so-called “special ambassadors” to Hollywood.There is no mention of Trump’s tariff proposal on foreign film production, which sparked outcry and confusion in the entertainment industry. The White House has since insisted: “No final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made.”Trump announced his 100% tariff on foreign films a day after a meeting with Voight at Mar-a-Lago, during which the Midnight Cowboy and Heat actor presented his “comprehensive plan” to “make Hollywood great again”.Voight has since defended Trump’s proposal and expressed surprise at the negative reaction from across the industry, arguing: “Something has to be done, and it’s way past time.” More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Just wildly illegal’: top Democrats push to censure Trump’s plan to accept Qatar jet

      by

      Top Democrats in the US Senate are pushing for a vote on the floor of the chamber censuring Donald Trump’s reported plan to accept a $400m luxury jet from the royal family of Qatar for use as Air Force One and later as a fixture in the Trump’s personal presidential library.Four Democratic members of the Senate foreign relations committee said on Monday that they would press for a vote later this week. They said that elected officials, including the president, were not allowed to accept large gifts from foreign governments unless authorized to do so by Congress.Cory Booker from New Jersey, Brian Schatz from Hawaii, Chris Coons from Delaware and Chris Murphy from Connecticut cast the reported gift of the Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet as a clear conflict of interest and a serious threat to national security.“Air Force Once is more than just a plane – it’s a symbol of the presidency and of the United States itself,” the senators said in a joint statement. “No one should use public service for personal gain through foreign gifts.”News of a possible gift of the luxury jet prompted immediate scathing criticism from senior Democrats. Though the Qatari government has stressed that no final decision has yet been made, Trump appeared to confirm it on Sunday when he commented on social media that the transfer was being made “in a very public and transparent transaction”.The plan appears to be for the 13-year-old plane to be fitted out by the US military for use as Air Force One and then, when Trump leaves the White House, for it to be put on display in his presidential library – in effect being handed to Trump for his own personal use.The reported arrangement comes as Trump sets off for a tour of the Middle East, including Qatar. Another of the countries on the tour, the United Arab Emirates, has also become embroiled in controversy over potential conflicts of interest involving Trump.Last week it was revealed that an investment firm based in Abu Dhabi had injected $2bn into a stablecoin venture launched by Trump’s World Liberty Financial crypto company as an investment into the crypto exchange Binance.Senate Democrats are also gearing up to challenge Trump’s conflicts of interest under congressional rules governing the sale of military weapons to foreign countries.Murphy, the senator from Connecticut who has been at the forefront of sounding the alarm over conflicts of interest in the second Trump administration, has said he will use his powers to challenge arms sales as a way of forcing a full debate and Senate vote on both the Qatar plane and UAE stablecoin issues.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHe said on social media that he would object to “any military deal with a nation that is paying off Trump personally – we can’t act like this is normal foreign policy”.He added: “UAE’s investment in Trump crypto and Qatar’s gifting of a plane is nuclear grade graft.”In an earlier post on Bluesky, Murphy described the idea of Qatar handing over the jet as being “just wildly illegal”.Trump has so far brushed aside the Democratic fury. He praised Qatar’s offer on Monday as a “great gesture” and said he would “never be one to turn down that kind of offer”. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge orders White House to temporarily halt sweeping government layoffs

      by

      Donald Trump’s administration must temporarily halt its sweeping government overhaul because Congress did not authorize it to carry out large-scale staffing cuts and the restructuring of agencies, a federal judge in California said on Friday.US district judge Susan Illston in San Francisco sided with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments in blocking large-scale mass layoffs known as “reductions in force” for 14 days.“As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,” Illston said.The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The ruling is the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that has been led by Elon Musk, the world’s richest person who is also the chief executive officer of electric vehicle maker Tesla.Dozens of lawsuits have challenged the work of the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) on various grounds including violating privacy laws and exceeding its authority, with mixed results.Trump directed government agencies in February to work with Doge to identify targets for mass layoffs as part of the administration’s restructuring plans.The president urged agencies to eliminate duplicative roles, unnecessary management layers and non-critical jobs while automating routine tasks, closing regional field offices and reducing the use of outside contractors.“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,” said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs.“Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government – laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that.”Illston scheduled a hearing for 22 May to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.She said that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on merits of some of their claims in their lawsuit, which was filed on 28 April and alleged Trump exceeded his authority. It also alleged the office of management and budget, Doge and the office of personnel management exceeded their authority and violated administrative law.Illston said plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the temporary restraining order, which she said preserves the status quo.Illston said the plaintiffs submitted more than 1,000 pages of evidence and 62 sworn declarations, and she highlighted some of the material.For example, she said the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and its Pittsburgh office, which researches health hazards facing mineworkers, had 221 of the department’s 222 workers terminated, citing the union. She gave similar examples at local offices of the Farm Service Agency, the Social Security Administration and Head Start, which supports early learning.“The court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families and communities,” Illston wrote in her ruling. More