Connect with us

Politics

Barely: House GOP passes government funding bill without help from Democrats

Published

on

Barely: House GOP passes government funding bill without help from Democrats

We learned something on Capitol Hill this week.

House Republicans can pass a government funding bill without Democratic assistance.

Barely. 217-213.

Republicans could only lose one vote. And that’s all they lost: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHERE WE STAND WITH A POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

Advertisement

The GOP bill even picked up one Democratic yea: Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine.

Passing government funding bills on their own wasn’t always the case for the House GOP. Republicans have held the House majority for more than two years now. The GOP majority consistently leaned on Democrats – serving in the minority – for many of the votes to keep the government open and lift the debt ceiling. But that changed late Tuesday afternoon as House Republicans approved their own bill to keep the lights on.

But before the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., berated Democrats for opposing the temporary spending package, known as a “Continuing Resolution” or “CR.”

“If Congressional Democrats refuse to support this clean CR, they will be responsible for every troop who misses a paycheck. For every flight delay from reduced staffing at TSA. For every negative consequence that comes from shutting down the government,” said Johnson.

It was unclear if Johnson could pass the bill with just Republicans. Especially as the Speaker upbraided Democrats for vowing to vote nay.

Advertisement

“You continually criticize the Democrats,” yours truly said to the Speaker. “Doesn’t that imply that you don’t have the votes on your side? Because you wouldn’t need Democratic assistance to keep the government?”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 7, 2025.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

“No. We will have the votes,” responded Johnson. “We’re going to pass the CR and we can do it on our own.”

A few hours later, the Speaker made good on his promise.

But he had an assist.

Advertisement

Vice President JD Vance came to the Capitol to assuage fears of skeptical House Republicans Tuesday morning. But Vance didn’t quite close the deal.

“I saw some looks in there that didn’t leave me feeling good as to securing the votes of those who may be having questions,” said Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., after the House Republican conclave with Vance.

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., and others said they needed more assurances about future spending cuts. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said he would “pray” about how to vote on the bill. But heading into the meeting, Burchett conceded he hadn’t yet experienced any political intercession.

“I’m uncomfortable with giving the Pentagon more money, even though overall, we’re cutting,” said Burchett.

By afternoon, Burchett told me he was “closer,” but still not there.

Advertisement

And when the House voted, it passed the bill.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: HERE WE GO AGAIN (AGAIN)

But what made the difference when it came to convincing skittish Republicans to vote yes?

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox he was “barely” for the CR.

“What’s the ‘barely’ part?” I asked.

Advertisement

“The ‘barely” is Donald Trump. He is the difference maker. I would never support this language. But I do trust Donald Trump,” said Burlison. “He’s not let me down. I think that he is a man of his word. And so I believe him when he’s when he says he’s going to get it done.”

But that was only half of the battle. The bill earned the support of all but one Senate Republican. But 60 votes are necessary to break a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 GOP members. So that would entail assistance from Democrats.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he opposed the bill because it didn’t cut spending. Paul said he didn’t get any blowback from the President or fellow Republicans on his position.

The US Capitol in Washington, DC, on Monday, Nov. 11, 2024.  (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“People know kind of where I am. I’m pretty consistent on opposing debt and opposing spending,” said Paul.

Advertisement

Contrast the silence Paul has heard to how President Trump unloaded on his Bluegrass State colleague, Thomas Massie. Mr. Trump argued that Massie should face a primary for his defection.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., is the only Democrat on the record support the stopgap spending bill.

So, it’s about the math.

With only 52 Republicans primed to crack a filibuster, that means the Senate needs eight Democrats to vote yes. That includes Fetterman. Note that they don’t have to vote yes on the bill. Just to overcome the filibuster. Republicans can pass the bill on their own with a simple majority.

This leaves Democrats as badly torn as any party in recently on any issue.

Advertisement

On one hand, Democrats don’t want to shutter the government. They fear that will imperil already skittish federal workers. And it could lead to additional cuts from Elon Musk and DOGE if federal workers aren’t on the job.

On the other hand, they want to be seen as fighting for their base and rally against President Trump and Musk.

But it is often the darkest before the dawn.

TRUMP’S UNION-ENDORSED PICK CONFIRMED BY SENATE TO LEAD LABOR DEPARTMENT

Democrats must either go to the mat or try to salvage something before the 11:59:59 pm et government funding deadline Friday.

Advertisement

There are rattlings that Democrats may ask for votes on a universe of amendments – none of which would pass. But at least Democrats could save face – telling their loyalists that they fought for their values and tried to stand up to the President and Musk. They could also make the case that a shutdown is worse than keeping the government open.

Fox is told senators would be interested in votes on the following subjects:

  • Restoring funding for Washington, DC
  • Restricting DOGE and/or efforts by the administration to “impound” money already appropriated by Congress
  • A Democratic one-month, stopgap spending bill

Fetterman appeared to be the only Democrat willing to vote for the GOP interim spending bill, but Thursday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced he would vote for it. And it’s possible that a vote on a set of amendments could unlock a few Democratic votes to break a filibuster on the bill.

But tensions are now running high.

Reporters staking out a meeting of Senate Democrats talking about the shutdown heard who they believe was Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand, D-N.Y., screaming at her colleagues through he thick Capitol walls.

Multiple Senate Democrats were utterly silent as they left a lengthy Senate Democratic Caucus. None of the senators approached by Fox were willing to talk – even though some are quite loquacious under other circumstances. In fact Fox even asked several of the Democrats if they were told not to say anything. Several replied “no comment.”

Advertisement

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., talks with reporters in Russell building after a senate vote on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Quiet on Capitol Hill often means something is up and that lawmakers are trying to broker a very fragile deal. It also means that lawmakers are fuming.

There was genuine fear among Democrats that a government shutdown could permanently imperil the federal government and perhaps trigger additional layoffs of thousands of federal workers.

Here’s the other problem: If the government shut down, no one is quite sure HOW it could re-open. It’s about the math. And the calculus under those circumstances simply did not work to for the House and Senate to eventually pass the same bill and re-open the government. That calculus simply did not seem to work. 

That’s why Schumer made the decision to support the Band-Aid spending bill – as risky as it is. 

Advertisement

Schumer and Trump. (AP/Getty Images)

This is why multiple Senate Democrats refused to comment on what Schumer told them at the closed-door caucus meeting today. That’s why tempers flared and Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was heard yelling through the thick Senate walls.

But this is not without peril for Schumer.

He needs to convince six other Democrats (for a grand total of eight) to support overcoming a filibuster. 

There are 53 Senate Republicans. 60 votes are needed to avert a filibuster. 

Advertisement

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a no. So the deficit is eight. Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) are the first two Democrats to say they are willing to vote to overcome a filibuster. So Schumer needs six more. 

If he can’t find those votes, the government will close. And Schumer will have committed a tremendous tactical error. 

As the saying goes, a leader with no followers is just a man out for a walk.

Former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, used to say that “nothing good” ever happens when Congress has been in session for more than three consecutive weeks.

Members grow angry. Antsy. Tempers are short.

Advertisement

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., noted that the Senate has met for ten consecutive weeks.

“Senators have been seeing a lot of each other lately. In fact, too much,” said Thune.

That includes three all-night sessions and weekend sessions. This period is the longest stretch of consecutive weeks for Senate activity in 15 years.

The Senate is scheduled to be out next week for the first time this year. A government shutdown trashes the recess. Senators have barely seen their family members. It’s been a frenetic pace.

Advertisement

That’s why the most powerful people in Washington could have the ultimate say about funding the government: Senate spouses.

And if the Senate aligns with the House, they will have averted a government shutdown.

But barely.

Politics

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

Published

on

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A bipartisan housing bill became law Saturday at midnight after President Donald Trump declined to sign it, capping a weeks-long saga over whether the president would veto the measure amid frustrations with Congress over his stalled agenda.

Trump refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — legislation aimed at expanding the nation’s housing stock and lowering costs — in an attempt to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, despite the housing bill clearing both chambers with overwhelming majorities.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he declared on Truth Social Friday morning. 

The Trump-backed election measure, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and impose voter ID requirements, has struggled to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the House has not passed a version of the bill that includes the president’s proposed crackdown on mail-in voting and banning men from women’s sports.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP)

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

Under the U.S. Constitution, Trump had 10 days, not including Sundays, to sign or veto the housing measure after the House formally transmitted the legislation to the White House in late June. The president ultimately chose neither option, allowing the measure to become law without his signature.

Though Trump declined to veto the legislation, he sharply criticized elements of the bill and argued it should not have been a legislative priority in recent weeks.

Advertisement

“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in late June. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”

Trump went on to call the housing bill “a yawn,” adding, “compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

It would have taken a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto — a margin the House and Senate exceeded when they passed the legislation. However, it remains unclear whether so many Republicans would have defied the president had he vetoed the bill.

Trump also appeared to criticize the bill over a provision restricting Wall Street investors from purchasing single-family homes — a policy he first proposed during his January State of the Union address and later urged Congress to pass. Trump previously argued the investor ban would give individual homebuyers a leg up against private equity firms in the housing market.

“I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too,” Trump later told reporters, appearing to reference the provision. “These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They’ve become rich. I don’t want to hurt them either. What you want to do is what’s good for everyone, get the interest rates down.”

Advertisement

The law also aims to boost housing supply by streamlining federal environmental reviews, loosening rules around the construction of factory-built homes, and incentivizing local governments to modify their zoning laws to allow more housing, among roughly 60 provisions.

Trump’s souring on the legislation created headaches for Republicans, who touted the bill as an affordability win as voters grapple with high housing costs.

“It’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a retiring lawmaker who lost re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, wrote on social media. “We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!”

Construction workers stand on the roof of homes under construction at a new housing development on June 24, 2026, in Valencia, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Advertisement

Trump abruptly canceled a signing ceremony for the legislation at the U.S. Capitol in June with GOP leaders. The stage had already been set, with at least one senior Republican arriving unaware the president had called off the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin.

The president then declared he would not sign the legislation until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, despite Senate GOP leaders insisting the votes do not exist to advance the measure.

Trump has also expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate for declining to weaken the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the upper chamber.

“GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

Before Trump came out against the bill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history” and said it included an array of policies “long championed” by Trump.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Trump political operative James Blair touted the legislation for including the president’s Wall Street investor ban, which he referred to as a “signature commitment.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has argued that Republicans will still promote the landmark housing bill ahead of November.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively,” the speaker recently told reporters, referring to Trump. “And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline

Published

on

Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline

The Trump administration has signed off on a company’s plan to convert an oil and gas pipeline to pump groundwater from the Mojave Desert to thirsty California cities for the first time, a lucrative venture that critics say threatens natural springs and wildlife.

The federal Bureau of Land Management released documents Thursday saying that Cadiz Inc.’s plan to repurpose 162 miles of the pipeline to transport water “will not significantly affect” the environment.

“We’re excited to achieve this pivotal milestone. After many years of planning and environmental review, the project has now reached the construction stage,” said Susan Kennedy, chair and chief executive of Cadiz.

Environmental advocates and leaders of Native tribes, who have been fighting the project, criticized the decision.

Advertisement

“This groundwater mining proposal would drain the desert and rob the Mojave of its rare springs and wildlife habitat,” said Chance Wilcox, California desert associate director of the National Parks Conservation Assn. “It’s indefensible that the Trump administration would once again try to revive the pointless Cadiz project, by defying decades of scientific warnings and refusing to conduct an environmental review of the groundwater mining.”

The application for the federal authorization was filed by the Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co. The documents say the company plans to build seven pump stations, three of them located on federal land managed by the agency.

The 30-inch steel pipeline runs underground from Cadiz’s desert property, near the town of Amboy, northward to the town of Mojave.

The BLM said in its authorization that repurposing the pipeline for water “would comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.” The agency said it has “reasonably determined that the impacts of groundwater withdrawal associated with Cadiz’s groundwater extraction project are outside the scope of analysis.”

Cadiz’s attempts to export water from its property 200 miles east of Los Angeles have drawn controversy for decades.

Advertisement

In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that requires the project to undergo scientific study and gain approval from the State Lands Commission before it can take water from the Mojave and sell it to California cities.

Activists opposing the company’s plans include civil rights leader Dolores Huerta.

“Cadiz spells destruction for water, sacred lands, and the desert economy,” Huerta said in a statement. “It is exactly this type of greed and injustice that I have dedicated my life to oppose.”

Leaders of nearby tribes have also objected to Cadiz’s plans to pump from the desert aquifer near the Mojave Trails National Monument and Mojave National Preserve.

“It is the living heart of the desert,” said Daniel Leivas, chairman of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe. “To drain it would be to drain the life out of the entire desert. No profit is worth such desecration.”

Advertisement

Chairman Timothy Williams of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe said the company’s plan “to pump and sell 25 times more groundwater each year than the aquifer can replenish would desecrate our traditional territories.”

“Pumping more groundwater than is sustainably replenished is not only negligent, but dangerous to the American Desert Southwest,” he said in the joint statement with other opponents of the project.

For years, while pursuing its plan to sell water far away, the company has been using wells on its property to irrigate nearly 2,000 acres of farmland growing lemons, grapes and other crops. It has drilled more wells in anticipation of being able to export water once the government approved its pipeline.

The company intends to pipe water to communities in San Bernardino County and says it’s “expected to provide one of the lowest-cost sources of new water in the drought-plagued Southwest.” It says the federal permit “marks a key milestone as we finalize project financing with prospective investors.”

Cadiz bought the 220-mile pipeline from El Paso Natural Gas in 2020. Once construction is completed, the company says the pipeline will be able to transport up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year — about 5% of what Los Angeles uses each year.

Advertisement

The Los Angeles-based corporation is also seeking to build a new pipeline along a railroad right-of-way to transport water to the south.

Environmental groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits challenging the project.

Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Trump administration’s decision “a green light for environmental destruction.”

She said six of the proposed pumping stations slated to be built are in the habitat of desert tortoises, a species in decline.

“We’ve successfully fended off this project before and we’ll continue to fight to stop this zombie from coming back,” Anderson said.

Advertisement

In 2021, the Biden administration reversed a Trump administration decision that had cleared the way for Cadiz to pipe water across public land. In 2022, a federal judge scrapped the pipeline permit that the Trump administration had issued.

But during President Trump’s second term, the company has again made headway on its plans. In February, Cadiz announced that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had invited it to submit an application for a $194-million low-interest loan for the northern pipeline project.

The company said in May that it reached an agreement with the federal Bureau of Reclamation to provide funding for a review of its potential role in “augmenting water supplies” along the shrinking Colorado River.

The company has also been lobbying the Trump administration. The group Public Citizen said in a recent report that Cadiz, through its nonprofit Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co., enlisted former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s new lobbying firm, the Bernhardt Group, and has spent at least $330,000 on lobbying in 2025 and 2026.

Records show lobbyist Luke Johnson has repeatedly accompanied Kennedy at meetings with Interior Department officials.

Advertisement

“The extensive influence of David Bernhardt’s boutique lobbying firm on the agency he formerly led highlights how insider firms staffed with former Trump officials have grown in recent years,” said Alan Zibel, a research director with Public Citizen. He said Bernhardt and his lobbyists “have learned how to master influence-peddling in the anything-goes era of Trump 2.0.”

Earlier this month, an Arizona water agency announced it signed an initial “memorandum of understanding” agreement to buy up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year from Cadiz’s Mojave Groundwater Bank. The Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District provides water to farmlands in Pinal County, where growers are dealing with water cutbacks.

The company said that for this to happen, it would need to build pipelines and reach deals to exchange water across state lines.

Members of California’s congressional delegation have raised concerns. In a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla called for a thorough environmental review, saying that federal agencies and peer-reviewed scientific analyses have “warned of the significant and irreversible impacts that Cadiz’s project could have on federal lands and surrounding communities.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) said in a letter to Burgum that he is concerned about the company’s long-standing effort to extract and export groundwater.

Advertisement

“The area I represent cannot afford to absorb the long-term costs of a commercially driven groundwater export scheme,” Ruiz said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Promotes ‘Freedom Fuel’ Gas Stations as Gas Prices Rise Again

Published

on

President Trump has promoted a chain of newly rebranded gas stations across the Philadelphia area with lower gas prices. The New York Times has not been able to get detailed information about who is behind the stations. The Trump administration says it did not fund or subsidize the company.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending