Connect with us

News

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

Published

on

Senate Adopts GOP Budget, Laying the Groundwork to Fund ICE and Reopen DHS

The Senate early Thursday morning adopted a Republican budget blueprint that would pave the way for a $70 billion increase for immigration enforcement and the eventual reopening of the Department of Homeland Security.

Republicans pushed through the plan on a nearly party-line vote of 50 to 48. It came after an overnight marathon of rapid-fire votes, known as a vote-a-rama, in which the G.O.P. beat back a series of Democratic proposals aimed at addressing the high cost of health care, housing, food and energy. The debate put the two parties’ dueling messages on vivid display six months before the midterm elections.

Republicans, who are using the budget plan to lay the groundwork to eventually push through a filibuster-proof bill providing a multiyear funding stream for President Trump’s immigration crackdown, used the all-night session to highlight their hard-line stance on border security, seeking to portray Democrats as unwilling to safeguard the country.

Democrats tried and failed to add a series of changes aimed at addressing cost-of-living issues, seizing the opportunity to hammer Republicans as out of touch with and unwilling to act on the concerns of everyday Americans.

Here’s what to know about the budget plan and the nocturnal ritual senators engaged in before adopting it.

Advertisement

The budget blueprint is a crucial piece of Republicans’ plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security and end a shutdown that has lasted for more than two months. After Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement without new restrictions on agents’ tactics and conduct, the G.O.P. struck a deal with them to pass a spending bill that would fund everything but ICE and the Border Patrol. Republicans said they would fund those agencies through a special budget bill that Democrats could not block.

“We can fix this with Republican votes, and we will,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and the Budget Committee chairman. “Every Democrat has opposed money for the Border Patrol and ICE at a time of great peril.”

In resorting to a new budget blueprint, Republicans laid the groundwork to deny Democrats a chance to stop the immigration enforcement funding. But they also submitted themselves to a vote-a-rama, in which any senator can propose unlimited changes to such a measure before it is adopted.

The budget measure now goes to the House, which must adopt it before lawmakers in both chambers can draft the legislation funding immigration enforcement. That bill will provide yet another opportunity for a vote-a-rama even closer to the November election.

Democrats took to the floor to criticize Republicans for supercharging funding for federal immigration enforcement rather than moving legislation that would address Americans’ concerns over affordability.

Advertisement

“This is what Republicans are fighting for,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the Democratic leader. “To maintain two unchecked rogue agencies that are dreaded in all corners of this country instead of reducing your health care costs, your housing costs, your grocery costs, your gas costs.”

Democrats offered a host of amendments along those lines, all of which were defeated by Republicans — and that was the point. The proposals were meant to put the G.O.P. in a tough political spot, showcasing their opposition to helping Americans afford high living costs. Fewer than a handful of G.O.P. senators crossed party lines to support them.

The G.O.P. thwarted an effort by Mr. Schumer to require that the budget measure lower out-of-pocket health care costs for Americans. Two Republicans who are up for re-election this year, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, voted with Democrats, but the proposal was still defeated.

Republicans also squelched a move by Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat of New Mexico, to create a fund that would lower grocery costs and reverse cuts to food aid programs that Republicans enacted last year. Ms. Collins and Mr. Sullivan again joined Democrats.

Also defeated by the G.O.P.: a proposal by Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, to address rising consumer prices brought on by Mr. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran; one by Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, to require the budget measure to address rising electricity prices, and another by Mr. Markey to create a fund to bring down housing costs.

Advertisement

Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat who is up for re-election in Georgia, also sought to add language requiring the budget plan to address health insurance companies denying or delaying access to care, but that, too was blocked by Republicans.

While Republicans had fewer proposals for changes to their own budget plan, they also sought to offer measures that would underscore their aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and dare Democrats to vote against them.

Mr. Graham offered an amendment to allocate funds toward a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to the apprehension and deportation of adult immigrants convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor after illegally entering the United States. It passed unanimously.

Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, sought to bar Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortion and other services, and criticized the organization for providing transgender care to minors. Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, also attempted to tack on the G.O.P. voter identification bill, known as the SAVE America Act. Both proposals were blocked when Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, voted to strike them as unrelated to the budget plan.

The Republicans who crossed party lines to oppose their own party’s proposals for new voting requirements were Ms. Collins along with Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Advertisement

Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski also opposed the effort to block payments to Planned Parenthood.

News

National Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds

Published

on

National Guard has done little to reduce violent crime in D.C., a new study finds

National Guard members stand watch near the Lincoln Memorial on the morning of Memorial Day in Washington, DC, May 25, 2026.

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has reduced petty property crimes, but has had little to no effect on violent crime, despite the high cost to taxpayers, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan think tank Niskanen Center.

The study’s findings were published just weeks after federal officials announced that the number of troops in D.C. is set to double this summer to 5,000 as part of a “summer surge” of law enforcement ahead of events planned for America’s 250th birthday celebration.

Trump deployed the National Guard to D.C. last August, as part of the administration’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which he said was an effort to reduce crime and beautify the city. The task force includes hundreds of federal law enforcement — including immigration enforcement — working in conjunction with local police. It’s an approach that Trump previously said he wants to carry out in “many cities,” and already has in places like Memphis and New Orleans.

Advertisement

There are currently around 2,800 National Guard members deployed to D.C. from both the city itself and about a dozen other states, all of which have Republican governors. In contrast to other controversial National Guard deployments by Trump during his second term, the president has the authority over the Guard in D.C.

Guard members do not legally have the power to carry out arrests, but can detain individuals.

Troops — many of whom are armed — are largely carrying out what are called “high visibility patrols” to make their presence known around federal property and in residential areas, parks and city metro stations in an effort to free up D.C. police to redeploy to higher-crime areas. The report found that generally hasn’t happened.

Instead, researchers found that the deployment led to a 24% drop in “opportunistic” crimes — like property crimes and vehicle break-ins. But the presence of the Guard had no effect on violent crimes, including robberies, which were already on a downward trend before Trump came back into office.

“What the Guard brought was a massive, sudden shock from the visible presence of uniformed military personnel on the streets of Washington almost overnight,” researchers wrote, calling the deployment of the Guard a “blunt and expensive instrument.”

Advertisement

A recent assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that it costs the federal government around $1.5 million per day for the current number of troops deployed to D.C.

“I think on balance the National Guard’s deployment is not a failure, there is success in what they’ve done. But I guess the point that we try to make is: compared to what?” says Richard Hahn, one of the authors of the study. “You could get the same or better outcomes, possibly much better outcomes, for much cheaper, if you just were very thoughtful about policing.”

In response to NPR’s request for comment about the study, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that it “should not be taken seriously.”

“The President’s Safe and Beautiful Task Force and National Guard presence have driven down crime, beautified the city, and improved quality of life for countless individuals,” Jackson said, without providing any evidence.

It’s unclear when the planned “summer surge” would end, or if the number of National Guard troops in the city would return to their current levels in the fall.

Advertisement

“Our message today is that we’re not done. We are not satisfied. We are not content with good. We are coming for perfection, and we won’t be done until we reclaim every last inch of ground on anyone seeking to do harm in our nation’s capital,” Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald said when announcing the surge.

NPR reached out to task force officials behind the Guard deployment for clarity on when the surge might start or end, but did not receive an immediate response.

Continue Reading

News

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Published

on

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Advertisement

Advertisement

Measure passed with 215 “yes” votes to 208 “no” votes.
Vote Total Democrats Republicans Bar chart of total votes
215 211 4
208 0 208

Advertisement

Note: Representative Kevin Kiley of California is an independent who caucuses with the Republicans.

The House on Wednesday passed a measure to direct President Trump withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win congressional approval to continue military operations there. The vote was the fourth of its kind in the chamber since the war began, the previous three having failed.

A vote on this measure was originally scheduled for last month but was pulled by House Republican leaders after it became clear they lacked the votes at the time to defeat it because of several members’ absences. Several Republicans were also absent on Wednesday, but party leaders were unable to delay the vote any longer.

Advertisement

Votes fell mostly along party lines, with the exception of four Republicans, who voted with Democrats to pass the measure. Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who had previously voted with Republicans, flipped and voted with his party.

Republicans who voted against their party

Advertisement

The House vote came after four Senate Republicans last month broke from their party to advance a measure to assert the legislature’s role in authorizing the war. The Senate had rejected seven other similar measures, but Republicans in both chambers have expressed increased uneasiness with the conflict as it wears on.

Even if a war powers resolution passed in both the House and Senate, it would be subject to an all-but-certain veto by Mr. Trump, which would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Beyond that, the president and his senior aides have frequently dismissed efforts by Congress to rein in his war powers, saying they are unconstitutional.

Advertisement

How Every Member Voted

Advertisement

Republicans

Advertisement

Member Answer

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Advertisement

Did not vote

Democrats

Member Answer
Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Did not vote

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Published

on

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict. 

The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.

Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.

The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it. 

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes. 

But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.

It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.” 

Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.

The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.

Advertisement

Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. 

GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News. 

But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms. 

“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said. 

The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. 

Advertisement

Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.” 

After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.” 

“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said. 

Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.” 

“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.” 

Advertisement

During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran. 

“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.

There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority. 

“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.” 

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending