Business
Tax Cuts or the Border? Republicans Wrestle Over Trump’s Priorities.
Republicans are preparing to cut taxes, slash spending and slow immigration in a broad agenda that will require unifying an unruly party behind dozens of complicated policy choices.
For now, though, they are struggling with a more prosaic decision: whether to cram their policy goals into one bill or split them into two.
It is a seemingly technical question that reveals a fundamental divide among Republicans about whether to prioritize a wide-ranging crackdown on immigration or cutting taxes, previewing what could be months of intramural policy debate.
Some Republicans have argued that they should pass two bills in order to quickly push through legislation focused on immigration at the southern border, a key campaign promise for Mr. Trump and his party’s candidates. But Republicans devoted to lowering taxes have pressed for one mammoth bill to ensure that tax cuts are not left on the cutting-room floor.
President-elect Donald J. Trump met with Republican senators in Washington on Wednesday, as those lawmakers sought clarity on his preferred strategy. He has waffled between the two ideas, prolonging the dispute.
“Whether it’s one bill or two bills, it’s going to get done,” Mr. Trump told reporters after the meeting.
Republicans are planning to ram the partisan fiscal package through the Senate over the opposition of Democrats using a process called reconciliation, which allows them to steer clear of a filibuster and pass bills with a simple majority vote. But for much of this year, Republicans will be working with a one-seat majority in the House and a three-seat majority in the Senate, meaning they will need near unanimity to pass major legislation.
That has left some worried that it will be hard enough passing one bill, much less two.
“There’s serious risk in having multiple bills that have to pass to get your agenda through,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the majority leader, said. “When you know you’ve got a lot of people that want this first package, if you only put certain things in the first package, they can vote no on the second and you lose the whole second package. That would be devastating.”
Adding to the urgency of achieving their policy goals, Republicans are facing a political disaster should they fail to deliver. Many of the tax cuts they put into place in 2017, the last time Mr. Trump was president, expire at the end of the year. That means that taxes on most Americans could go up if Congress does not pass a tax bill this year.
Passing tax cuts can take time, though. While much of the Republican tax agenda involves continuing measures the party passed in 2017, Mr. Trump and other Republicans have floated additional ideas, including no taxes on tips and new incentives for corporations to manufacture in the United States. Ideas like that could take months to formulate into workable policy.
Then there is the gigantic cost. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that simply extending the 2017 tax cuts would cost more than $4 trillion over a decade — a price tag that would grow if other tax cuts, like Mr. Trump’s proposal to not tax overtime pay, are included.
Further complicating support for the legislation is that Republicans plan to raise the debt limit through reconciliation, another sensitive issue for fiscal hawks.
Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus have said they would not support any legislation unless the costs it introduces are offset by spending cuts. While most Republicans support reining in federal spending, agreeing on which federal programs to slash always proves harder than expected. In an attempted workaround, Republicans have instead begun to explore ways to change Washington’s budget rules so the tax cuts are shown to cost less.
The complexity of pulling together a tax bill that can secure the necessary votes has some Republicans hoping to hold off until later in the year and first charge ahead with a smaller bill focused on immigration, energy and military issues. Republicans have not yet publicly sketched out what that bill would look like.
Proponents of that strategy argue it would deliver Mr. Trump an early political victory on immigration and treat a top Republican campaign issue with the urgency it deserves.
“The No. 1 priority is securing our border,” Representative Byron Donalds of Florida told reporters on Tuesday. “In my opinion it’s the top priority, and everything else is a close second.”
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee who will be overseeing the reconciliation process, has also pressed for a two-bill approach. “If you hold border security hostage to get tax cuts, you’re playing Russian roulette with our national security,” he said.
Republicans have looked to Mr. Trump to intervene and set a clear direction for the party. On Sunday, he wrote on social media that Congress should pass “one powerful Bill,” an apparent victory for lawmakers like Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who had championed that approach. Mr. Trump’s equivocation since then, though, has left Republicans still unsure of which strategy they should pursue.
Mr. Trump’s meeting with top Republican senators on Wednesday will be followed by a discussion with various House Republicans in Florida over the weekend.
In a sign of how politically complicated the tax cut discussion could get, one of the sessions is expected to focus on relaxing the $10,000 limit on the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT.
Republicans included the $10,000 limit in the 2017 tax law as a way to contain the cost of that legislation. But the move angered House Republicans from high-tax states like New York and New Jersey, many of whom voted against the entire 2017 tax bill as a result. Such defections are a luxury that Republican leaders can’t afford this year given their narrow majority.
G.O.P. lawmakers from New York, New Jersey and California could tank a tax bill if they are unsatisfied with how the provision is handled. They are now pushing to lift the cap as part of the party’s tax bill. Eliminating the cap entirely could add roughly $1 trillion to the price tag of the legislation.
Maneuvering ambitious policy agendas through Congress has often been a messy and time-consuming process for presidents. A Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Mr. Trump’s first term collapsed after more than six months of discussion.
After quickly passing pandemic relief measures in 2021 under President Biden, much of Democrats’ broader agenda was stymied for almost two years before a second party-line measure passed that was far narrower than many in the party had hoped.
This time around, Republicans will be grappling not only with a historically slim margin in the House, but also a president prone to sudden changes of heart.
“You can argue the merits of both” strategies, said Representative Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who leads the House Budget Committee. “He has to tell us what he wants and what he needs.”
Business
Kevin Warsh, Trump’s Pick to Lead Fed, Faces Senate at Tricky Moment
Kevin M. Warsh, President Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve, has spent years refining his pitch for why he should get one of the most powerful economic jobs in the world.
At his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, he will have to convince Senate lawmakers that he is ready to step into the role, which has become politically explosive amid Mr. Trump’s relentless attacks on the institution and its current chair, Jerome H. Powell.
Mr. Warsh, who is scheduled to testify before the Banking Committee at 10 a.m., plans to commit to being “strictly independent” on decisions related to interest rates, according to his prepared remarks. He also plans to tell lawmakers that he is unbothered by Mr. Trump’s incessant calls for substantially lower borrowing costs. And he will use his opening statement to underscore his focus on disrupting the “status quo” at an institution he said just last year was in need of “regime change.”
“In a time that will rank among the most consequential in our nation’s history, I believe a reform-oriented Federal Reserve can make a real difference to the American people,” he plans to tell lawmakers, adding: “The stakes could scarcely be higher.”
Mr. Warsh, 56, faces significant hurdles to winning confirmation. He has broad support among Republicans, who control the Senate and can confirm him along party lines. Yet his candidacy has stalled because of an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into Mr. Powell and his handling of the Fed’s headquarters renovations.
Mr. Powell’s term as chair ends May 15, but Mr. Warsh looks increasingly unlikely to be in place by then. That’s because Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina — a Republican on the Banking Committee who has expressed support for Mr. Warsh — has vowed to block any attempt to confirm a new Fed chair until the legal threats into Mr. Powell are resolved. For Mr. Tillis, the investigation is a blatant attempt to coerce Mr. Powell into lowering rates, undermining the Fed’s independence and confirming the politicization of the Justice Department.
“I’m not going to condone bad decision-making and bad behavior,” Mr. Tillis told reporters on Monday in reference to the Justice Department’s lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.
The department has vowed to continue its investigation, despite numerous legal setbacks.
“I think ultimately, he will be confirmed,” Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, another Republican on the committee, told reporters on Monday. “I just don’t know what decade.”
Mr. Warsh’s ascent would mark a homecoming for the Wall Street financier, who served as a Fed governor from 2006-11.
Since leaving the Fed, he has amassed assets worth well in excess of $100 million, according to financial disclosures submitted before his hearing. Those have drawn scrutiny because Mr. Warsh repeatedly invoked “pre-existing confidentiality agreements” to avoid disclosing the details behind several of his investments. He has said he would divest a substantial amount of his assets before taking the job.
The global financial crisis dominated Mr. Warsh’s first tenure at the Fed, thrusting him into the middle of discussions about how the central bank should respond to the threat of bank failures, turmoil in financial markets and a painful recession that followed. Mr. Warsh, then the youngest-ever member of the Board of Governors, was initially supportive of the Fed’s efforts to shore up financial markets by buying enormous quantities of government bonds and expanding its balance sheet to ease strains in financial markets and support growth by keeping market-based rates low.
But he soon soured on subsequent efforts to buy more bonds and resigned in protest. That experience has stuck with Mr. Warsh, who has made a smaller balance sheet a pillar of his plans if he takes over as chair.
Mr. Warsh would also be likely to usher in changes to how the Fed communicates its policy views, having expressed misgivings about its strategy of providing so-called forward guidance, or hints about how interest rates may change in the future to guide expectations. He has also suggested that policymakers across the Fed system should speak far less. Mr. Powell held a news conference after each rate decision, or eight a year, and delivered speeches with regularity. Mr. Trump’s pick to join the Fed last year, Stephen I. Miran, often speaks multiple times a week.
“Once policymakers reveal their economic forecast, they can become prisoners of their own words,” Mr. Warsh said in a speech last year. “Fed leaders would be well served to skip opportunities to share their latest musings. The swivel-chair problem, rhetorically waxing and waning with the latest data release, is common and counterproductive.”
What is far less clear is how much Mr. Warsh would heed the president’s demands for lower interest rates. Mr. Trump said he would not pick someone for chair who did not support lower borrowing costs.
Mr. Warsh sought in his opening statement to downplay the costs of a president’s voicing his opinions about rates, saying central bankers must be “strong enough to listen to a diversity of views from all corners, humble enough to be open-minded to new ideas and new economic developments, wise enough to translate imperfect data into meaningful insight and dedicated enough to make judgments faithfully and wisely.”
Earlier this year, many officials at the Fed saw a path to gradually lower rates as the impact of Mr. Trump’s tariffs faded and inflation restarted its slide back toward 2 percent after almost of year of stalling out. The war in Iran — and the energy shock it has unleashed — has upended those forecasts, however, prompting officials to turn wary about lowering rates.
Mr. Warsh will face questions on Tuesday about the economic impact of the war and how it has changed his thinking around the Fed’s ability to lower rates. While at the Fed, he was known as an inflation hawk who often argued against providing policy relief for fear that it could stoke price pressures. He also said the Fed should aspire to engage in rule-based policymaking that stems from formulas that prescribe how officials should set rates based on levels of inflation and employment.
While campaigning to be chair, Mr. Warsh embraced the need for rate cuts, arguing that there was a path for lower borrowing costs because of his plans to shrink the balance sheet, which would lift longer-term rates that then could be offset by lowering short-term ones. He also argued that higher productivity from the boom in artificial intelligence could unleash higher growth without stoking inflation, which could give the Fed more space to lower rates than otherwise would be the case.
In his opening statement, Mr. Warsh made clear, however, that a failure to bring down inflation, which has been stuck above the Fed’s 2 percent target for roughly five years, would strictly be the Fed’s fault, suggesting that he would shoulder the blame if he did not bring it back down during his tenure.
“Inflation is a choice, and the Fed must take responsibility for it,” he will tell lawmakers.
Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.
Business
New lawsuit alleges Uber is violating drivers’ rights. Here’s how
A gig drivers organization filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging the company violated their rights by not providing a sufficient appeals process for deactivated accounts.
The lawsuit was announced Monday during a news conference by Rideshare Drivers United, an independent organization that represents more than 20,000 app-based drivers in California.
The organization, represented by attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, said thousands of drivers have been terminated with little to no explanation, many of whom had worked as drivers for years and had high ratings.
“Drivers want to stand up for themselves and for basic fairness, and we can’t when there is no fair appeals process,” said Jason Munderloh, the chairman of the organization’s Bay Area chapter.
The lawsuit is the latest in a long battle between drivers and major ride-hailing service companies. Uber, a frequent target of lawsuits, has often faced claims of labor violations and vehicle collisions.
The tension could reach the November ballot, as the ride-hailing giant attempts to curb the laundry list of legal action. Uber is advocating for legislation that could cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases.
Rideshare Drivers United said Monday that Uber is violating Proposition 22, which passed in 2020 and was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. The legislation was a win for gig economy companies, allowing them to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, provided certain requirements are met.
Uber is violating a clause in the proposition that requires the company to provide an appeals process for drivers who are terminated, the organization said.
“Uber has had six years of hiding behind Prop. 22 on issues favorable to it and ignored the law when it seemed inconvenient,” Munderloh said.
The lawsuit seeks a statewide judgment that Uber has failed to comply with Proposition 22, along with an opportunity for the thousands of deactivated drivers to appeal their terminations. The suit also seeks reactivation and back pay for drivers who were unfairly terminated.
Uber denied the claims in the lawsuit and reaffirmed that it offers a clear appeals process, in compliance with Proposition 22, a spokesperson told The Times.
“This is a baseless lawsuit by an opportunistic trial lawyer seeking to overturn Proposition 22 and the will of California voters,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll fight this publicity stunt in court while continuing to strengthen drivers’ voice on the platform.”
The company posted on a blog Friday that details its termination and appeals process. Every deactivated driver is given a reason for termination and offered a review process for more information. Drivers can then appeal, and the appeal is evaluated by a real person, according to the website.
Rirdeshare Drivers United said drivers are often terminated for vague reasons and are met with endless automated chatbots when inquiring about their terminations.
Drivers who request an appeal are either automatically denied or given the runaround without being offered an actual appeals process, Liss-Riordan said.
Devins Baker had given about 18,000 rides for Uber in eight years and boasted a 4.96 rating when his account was unexpectedly terminated just before Christmas in 2024. An automated message from the company claimed Baker had driven recklessly and offered no other information, he said.
He wasn’t told what resulted in his termination, but said that during his last ride, he had to drive defensively to avoid crashing into a vehicle that was merging recklessly on the freeway.
Baker had to hit the brakes to avoid the collision, and the passenger, who wasn’t wearing a seat belt, fell off the seat.
Baker was not offered a chance to appeal, he said.
Proposition 22 carved out a new classification for gig economy workers, affording them limited benefits, but not the rights granted to full-fledged employees.
The legislation received strong financial backing from Uber.
A group of drivers challenged Proposition 20 in 2024, claiming the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the state Legislature’s authority to provide workers’ compensation protections to drivers. Their claims were ultimately rejected by the state’s highest court.
Ride-hail drivers have long raised concerns about low wages, minimal workplace protections and exploitative practices.
More recently, they have grappled with rising gas prices amid the war in the Middle East, which has driven some away from the ride-hailing business.
“The pay is not good in the first place. We do what we can to create a solid framework for ourselves and our families,” said Munderloh, who works as a part-time Uber driver. “It’s hard enough with how little they pay us, and then even that is taken away.”
Various gig companies, including Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, have said Proposition 22 is a crucial component of their businesses and threatened to shut down in the state if the proposition were struck down. These companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign to sway voters on the proposition.
Business
The Onion Signs New Deal to Take Over Infowars
When Infowars, the website founded by the right-wing conspiracist Alex Jones, came up for sale two years ago, an unlikely suitor stepped up. The Onion, a satirical news outlet, planned to convert the site into a parody of itself.
That sale was scuttled by a bankruptcy court. Now, The Onion has re-emerged with a new plan: licensing the website from Gregory Milligan, the court-appointed manager of the site.
On Monday, Mr. Milligan asked Maya Guerra Gamble, a judge in Texas’ Travis County District Court overseeing the disposition of Infowars, to approve that licensing agreement in a court filing. Under the terms, The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, would pay $81,000 a month to license Infowars.com and its associated intellectual property — such as its name — for an initial six months, with an option to renew for another six months.
The licensing deal has been agreed to by The Onion and the court-appointed administrator. But it is not effective until Judge Guerra Gamble approves it, and Mr. Jones could appeal any ruling. That means the fate of Infowars remains in limbo until the court rules, probably sometime in the next two weeks. Mr. Jones continues to operate Infowars.com and host its weekday program, “The Alex Jones Show.”
Mr. Jones had no immediate comment.
The battle over Infowars has been a long and fraught saga, and Mr. Jones — a notorious peddler of lies and invective — has used his bully pulpit for more than a year to crusade against The Onion’s efforts to take over the platform. The site is in limbo because of a series of defamation lawsuits against Mr. Jones filed by families of victims of the mass shooting in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, which Mr. Jones falsely claimed was a hoax.
People who believed his lies that the shooting was staged subjected the families to years of online abuse, harassment and death threats.
In 2018, the families of two Sandy Hook victims sued Mr. Jones for defamation in Texas, where Infowars is based, and relatives of eight other victims sued him in Connecticut. In 2022, a jury in Texas awarded the parents of one victim $50 million.
Mr. Jones declared bankruptcy later that year. A trial pitting him against the parents of a second victim was delayed indefinitely by that move. Later that year, a jury awarded the families and a former law enforcement official who sued Mr. Jones in Connecticut a total of $1.4 billion.
Mr. Jones appealed the Connecticut verdict, the largest defamation award in history, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In October, the justices declined to hear the case.
To help satisfy Mr. Jones’s debts to the Sandy Hook families and other creditors, Judge Christopher Lopez of U.S. Bankruptcy Court ordered in mid-2024 that a court-appointed trustee sell off equipment, intellectual property and other assets owned by Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company.
In late 2024, a sealed-bid silent auction drew only two contenders: The Onion’s parent and a company associated with Mr. Jones. The trustee and the families chose The Onion’s bid, despite its potential to yield less cash than the rival company’s. Mr. Jones and his lawyers cried foul, and Judge Lopez intervened, saying that the process was opaque and that The Onion’s bid was not obviously superior. He rejected plans for a do-over of the auction, instead directing the families to seek a liquidation through Judge Guerra Gamble’s court in Texas, where the first defamation case was heard and won.
In August, Judge Guerra Gamble ruled that a court-appointed administrator would take over and sell Infowars’ assets, reopening the door to The Onion. “We’re working on it,” Ben Collins, the chief executive of Global Tetrahedron, wrote on social media on the same day as Judge Guerra Gamble’s ruling.
The Onion’s proposal, worth $486,000 in its initial six-month term, does little to satisfy the enormous damages awarded to the Sandy Hook families. The families have been fighting to collect since Mr. Jones filed for personal and business bankruptcy. Mr. Jones is expected to lose access to his studio and equipment as part of the deal, Mr. Collins said.
The Onion plans to turn Infowars into a comedy site with satirical echoes of the fringe conspiracy theories that Mr. Jones is known for. Tim Heidecker, one of the comedians behind “Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!” on Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim, has been hired to serve as “creative director of Infowars.” He said he initially planned to parody Mr. Jones’s “whole modus operandi.”
Mr. Heidecker has been working on his impression of Mr. Jones. But eventually, when that joke gets old, Mr. Heidecker hopes to turn Infowars into a destination for independent and experimental comedy, he said.
“I just thought it would be just a beautiful joke if we could take this pretty toxic, negative, destructive force of Infowars and rebrand it as this beautiful place for our creativity,” Mr. Heidecker said in an interview. During a recent trip to Philadelphia, he traveled to the Liberty Bell to film a video in character as the new creative director of Infowars.
“The goal for the families we represent has always been to prevent Alex Jones from being able to cause harm at scale, the way he did against them,” said Chris Mattei, the lawyer who argued the Connecticut families’ case in court. The deal with The Onion promises “to significantly degrade his power to do that.”
The Onion also plans to sell merchandise and share the proceeds with the Sandy Hook families.
“We are excited to lie constantly for cold, hard cash, but this time in a cool way, and we’ll make sure some of it gets back to the families,” Mr. Collins said.
While broadcast programming is “out of my lane,” Mr. Mattei said, “satire and humor can be universal. If their programming can be of interest to Jones’s former audience, and help bring them out of the dark, that would be wonderful.”
In the meantime, the company has been filming satirical videos in antipation of the court’s ruling. One of them features a fictional anchor from the satirical Onion News Network, “Jim Haggerty,” who defects from the mainstream media to become a conspiracy monger. He will be played by the actor Brad Holbrook.
“For 35 years, I was part of the problem,” Mr. Haggerty intoned in a dramatic trailer released by The Onion. “But now, I’m free of my corporate shackles, and my only business is freedom.”
-
Hawaii2 minutes ago
Iran War Puts a Pause on Hawaii’s Housing Market Recovery
-
Idaho8 minutes agoIdaho Fish and Game reminds humans not to touch wild baby animals
-
Illinois14 minutes ago‘Millionaires tax’ would hike rate 61% on 22K Illinois small businesses
-
Indiana20 minutes ago
Why Sophie Cunningham turned down multi-year contract offers to return to Indiana Fever
-
Iowa26 minutes agoIowa DOT plans overnight I‑80 closure at northeast mixmaster
-
Kansas32 minutes agoFinal 7-Round Kansas City Chiefs 2026 NFL Mock Draft: Putting my skills to the test against an AI trained to think like Brett Veach
-
Kentucky38 minutes agoAsia Boone will return to Kentucky for senior year
-
Louisiana44 minutes agoGaining momentum: Louisiana climbs to No. 3 in the South for job growth