Politics
Here’s What to Know About Congressional Republicans’ Budget Plans
The Senate on Tuesday evening voted on party lines to adopt a budget outline designed to clear the way for a major piece of President Trump’s domestic agenda, putting forth a measure that calls for increasing spending on immigration enforcement and defense while cutting other federal programs.
Republicans in Congress have been consumed for weeks with advancing a budget blueprint to power their push to enact Mr. Trump’s sweeping tax and immigration agenda. Approval of such a plan is a crucial first step if Republicans want to avail themselves of a process called budget reconciliation, which allows legislation that affects government revenues to pass the Senate on a simple majority vote.
For decades, both parties have used that maneuver to push major domestic policy legislation through Congress — including tax cuts, health care policy changes and economic relief packages — over the opposition of the minority party. The stakes are exceedingly high, and the process is tremendously difficult.
The House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans, have been working on separate budget plans and are at odds on how to move forward. With the House G.O.P. divided and delayed in considering their outline, the Senate is moving ahead.
Here’s what you need to know about the budget.
What is a budget resolution?
In theory, Congress is supposed to adopt a budget resolution each year setting a top-line number for federal funding and providing general contours for how that money should be spent. After the plan is approved, it falls to lawmakers on the Appropriations Committees to allocate federal dollars, following the blueprint.
Lawmakers in recent years have not produced such a plan or put it to a vote, sidestepping tough decisions about what programs to spend on and what programs to cut. Instead, congressional leaders, in collaboration with senior appropriators, have agreed on the overall numbers and simply passed spending legislation each year.
But in order to use the reconciliation process, the House and the Senate must each adopt a budget resolution that lays out broad areas of agreement on where to increase and decrease spending.
The budget resolution is just a blueprint. Unlike a spending bill, it does not carry the force of law, and it does not fund the government. Its consideration is entirely separate from another task that Republicans in Congress have in the weeks ahead: agreeing to and passing legislation to keep federal funding flowing past a March 14 deadline.
The budget measure being considered this week does not even lay out what specific legislative changes to take in order to meet the spending targets it contains. Those changes must be detailed in separate legislation — one or multiple bills — that is subject to restrictive rules for what can be included and which must pass both the House and Senate to become law.
What’s the difference between the House and Senate blueprints?
The Senate blueprint is far more bare-bones than the House plan. It calls for increasing military spending by $150 billion. Funding for border security measures, including additional detention beds and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, would increase by $175 billion. It does not lay out specific spending cuts to pay for those increases, but Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who chairs the Budget Committee, has indicated that the legislation would be fully paid for, in part through new revenues from domestic drilling.
Mr. Graham has said the blueprint represents just the opening salvo in the Senate’s legislative drive, and that it would be followed by a second bill that would extend the 2017 tax cuts.
The House plan is both more expansive and more granular, in an effort to meet the demands of conservative hard-liners who have demanded that House G.O.P. leaders guarantee deep spending cuts.
That blueprint calls for legislation that would add roughly $3 trillion to the deficit over a decade, while imposing deep cuts in spending on health care and food programs for low-income people. That would help pay for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. It also calls for raising the debt limit by $4 trillion.
Why are the House and the Senate advancing different plans?
House and Senate leaders have remained divided over the best way to enact Mr. Trump’s fiscal promises into law. In the Senate, Republicans have argued that lawmakers should deliver the president an early political victory and quickly pass legislation increasing funding for immigration enforcement, arguing that the Homeland Security Department desperately needs more money to carry out the White House’s ambitious deportation agenda.
But G.O.P. leaders in the House have argued that lumping Mr. Trump’s entire domestic policy agenda into one big bill will make it easier to pass in a chamber where Republicans have a razor-thin majority and will need to muster near-unanimity in order to pass the blueprint.
Senate leaders initially deferred to the House, but after internal divisions slowed their efforts to put together a budget plan, Mr. Graham went ahead and advanced his own plan.
What programs are on the chopping block?
Because the budget resolution only lays out broad spending targets by committee, Republicans have not yet had to choose which federal programs they will cut — or by how much.
But the House blueprint hints at where Republicans plan to find the money to finance their tax cuts. For example, the plan instructs the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, to come up with at least $880 billion in cuts. That accounts for more than half of the reductions laid out in the budget outline.
Those choices will be among the toughest Republican leaders will have to make, especially in the House. They will need to balance the demands of hard-right conservatives who want to gut Medicaid and food stamps against the entreaties of politically vulnerable moderates whose constituents rely on those programs.
At the same time, they will have to decide which tax cuts championed by Mr. Trump are essential, and which they can jettison. Just extending the 2017 tax cuts alone would cost roughly $4 trillion over the next 10 years.
Andrew Duehren contributed reporting.
Politics
Inside Trump’s Swift Construction of a White House Helipad
President Trump, a former real estate mogul who knows a few things about construction projects, says there is “no harder zoning thing to get” than a helipad. But he is building one at the White House, and building it fast.
Such projects usually require a developer to navigate a complex web of zoning laws, airspace regulations and environmental impact studies, while negotiating with town councils and fighting off community pushback. Construction at the White House can often face additional hurdles.
But Mr. Trump has encountered no such difficulties as he quickly proceeds with construction of a black granite helipad on the South Lawn. He has not asked Congress or any review panel, such as the Commission of Fine Arts, to approve the project.
Past presidents have involved Congress and review panels in changes to the White House grounds, though Mr. Trump has asserted that he has the right to undertake major construction projects, such as a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom, without congressional approval. That project is currently the subject of litigation.
A White House spokesman said in an email that “operational upgrades to the White House grounds, such as the helipad installation, do not require commission reviews.”
Work on the helipad — which will be 100 feet in diameter and feature a presidential seal — started last month, shortly after a makeshift stadium built to host an Ultimate Fighting Championship fight significantly damaged the South Lawn.
Dana White, the U.F.C. president, said that his organization had set aside $700,000 to repair the lawn after the June 14 event. But Mr. Trump instead decided to forge ahead immediately with a helipad he had long wanted.
Why Trump is building a helipad
The helipad would allow Mr. Trump to use the latest generation of Sikorsky helicopters as Marine One on White House grounds — a move multiple administrations had avoided because the new, more powerful helicopters were likely to damage the South Lawn during landing.
The Navy began the search in 2010 for helicopters to replace the two models that have been used to transport the president and vice president for more than four decades — the VH-3D and the VH-60N. It purchased 23 VH-92A helicopters, including two test aircraft, at about $215 million apiece, with a total cost estimated at $5 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office.
The new helicopters are produced by Sikorsky, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, which is building the helipad as a donation. They joined the fleet between 2014 and 2021 and underwent a period of testing. The new generation of helicopters has occasionally been known to scorch the grass with engine exhaust while landing — an issue found during a training session in September 2018.
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was the first president to fly on a VH-92A, on his way to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August 2024. But no new helicopter has yet transported a president to and from the South Lawn.
Marine One landed on the South Lawn grass for decades, and portable aluminum pads were rolled out to catch the wheels.
Mr. Trump said the new helicopters were “more powerful than the old ones. And when you land on the grass, it’s not that the grass gets discolored, it gets ripped out.”
The VH-92A has two engines with more than three times the capacity of those of the VH-3D, the current Marine One model, pushing more heat to the ground.
Lockheed Martin, a major defense contractor, is paying for the helipad project, which Mr. Trump estimated would cost between $5 million and $6 million.
“They didn’t tell us how powerful these helicopters were, and they felt a little bit guilty,” Mr. Trump said.
According to a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin, the company has a “long history of supporting projects in both the Washington, D.C., area and across the country. This specific contribution was made to the National Park Service. Our engagement with the federal government is guided by rigorous ethics and compliance standards and conducted in full accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”
More red tape for a Mar-a-Lago helipad
Mr. Trump is also trying to build a helipad at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla. But that project is moving much more slowly than the one at the White House.
The Mar-a-Lago project has been the subject of local historic preservation commission review, multiple public hearings, negotiations with town lawyers and votes by the Town Council.
Because Mar-a-Lago is a historic property, any changes there must be approved by the Palm Beach Landmarks Preservation Commission, said Joanne O’Connor, the town attorney for Palm Beach.
Mr. Trump had installed a helipad at the resort during his first administration, but it was dismantled after he left office.
The town is allowing Mr. Trump to build a new helipad at Mar-a-Lago but has placed limits on its use after his presidency. Any helicopter trips to or from Mar-a-Lago after he leaves office can be carried out only if approved by the Secret Service and in the event of an emergency, Ms. O’Connor said. The helipad cannot be used, for instance, to facilitate a golf outing.
“The concern was balancing the health, safety and welfare of the president with the interests of the town residents and the quiet enjoyment of their residential property,” Ms. O’Connor said.
No such review is taking place for the changes Mr. Trump is making at the White House.
Mr. Trump spoke recently about the difficulty most people encounter when trying to have helipads approved at their properties.
“I always was lucky, I always got helipads,” he said in remarks from the Oval Office. “Other people don’t. Very hard to get. The hardest thing to get is a helipad, OK?”
The South Lawn’s future
The helipad would significantly reshape the South Lawn, which has historically hosted events and ceremonies, including the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.
A White House official said events on the South Lawn would not be affected by the new helipad and would continue as usual.
“It can be used for other things when helicopters aren’t landing,” Mr. Trump said this month. “You can have other things out there like events. You could have news conferences literally on it because it’s the right size. So by doing this, we solved the problem, and we’ll be able to finally retire 45-year-old helicopters.”
Previous administrations have prioritized preservation of the White House property over permanent changes to the South Lawn. During the Biden administration, building a helipad was not high on the president’s priority list, said Andrew Bates, who served as a White House spokesman.
Politics
Todd Blanche roasts Adam Schiff in heated hearing: ‘You’re a lawyer, you know the rules’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche came out swinging against Sen. Adam Schiff on Wednesday, denying allegations of self-dealing and intentional refusal-to-recuse in President Donald Trump’s cases, while accusing the California Democrat of lying.
Schiff sparred with Blanche over several legal matters he said prove the nominee is unfit for the job of America’s top law enforcement officer, citing what he described as serious conflicts of interest. Blanche denied the allegations while telling Schiff he was misstating ethics rules and botching key timelines.
Schiff pressed Blanche on whether he met with Justice Department ethics lawyers about his prior representation of Trump in the Stormy Daniels, Mar-a-Lago classified documents, and Jan. 6 cases.
TRUMP’S AG NOMINEE RACKS UP MASSIVE SUPPORT AHEAD OF CONFIRMATION HEARING: ‘REAL RESULTS’
Sen. Adam Schiff, left, and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. (Al Drago/Getty Images; Eric Lee/Getty Images)
Blanche affirmed and said he has recused himself from future litigation or Justice Department business involving any of those suits. But Schiff countered that Blanche reportedly told a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that there was no conflict of interest in the Justice Department firing prosecutors linked to Jan. 6 or other cases.
Blanche soon fired back when Schiff criticized him for moving to vacate Jan. 6-related convictions for 12 members of far-right groups.
“I was the acting attorney general – so yes, my department moved to dismiss,” he said, adding that there was no reason for him to recuse himself when Schiff pressed him further.
BIDEN SPECIAL COUNSEL’S ‘RUNAWAY TRAIN’ SCOOPED UP SENSITIVE LAWMAKER INFO: ‘ABUSE OF POWER’
“From the Proud Boys matter?” Blanche responded with a puzzled look.
“You’re a lawyer, you know the rules,” Blanche told the Massachusetts-born graduate of Harvard Law.
OBAMA JUDGE HANDS PROGRESSIVES A WIN OVER ANTI-TRUMP ’86 47′ MESSAGE AMID RISING THREATS
“There are rules that say when I have to recuse and that’s not one of them,” Blanche said.
“There are rules,” Schiff agreed. “And when you’re told to recuse yourself from investigations that you handle for the president…” – “I always do,” Blanche cut in – “you’re supposed to recuse yourself,” Schiff finished.
Schiff noted that the second volume of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Trump has not been released and said the Justice Department has opposed making it available.
Blanche denied having anything to do with the decision and pointed out it is not the Justice Department, but a federal judge in Miami, that has prohibited its release.
“If you went into court asking them to release it, it would be released by now,” Schiff argued.
Blanche shot back: “What you’re saying happens not to be true – I did not do that.”
“You can’t accuse me of violating my ethical rules and then lie about what I did,” he continued,
Schiff asked Blanche at length what allegedly evolved in his professional life that led him to be under such criticisms.
“What I don’t understand, Todd Blanche, is what happened to the Todd Blanche who was a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York? What happened to the prosecutor people had respect for,” he said.
“What happened to the prosecutor who said that there wouldn’t be a whiff of political partisanship and then prosecutes the president’s enemies over seashells cases, over making a video stating the plain law in the Constitution?” Schiff said – appearing to reference investigations into former FBI Director Jim Comey’s “8647” post that critics said amounted to a threat on Trump’s life.
“I think Robert Caro had it right when he said that power doesn’t corrupt as much as it reveals. I suspect it has just revealed who you are and who you are as someone willing to sacrifice everything you once believed in for that title, for that position of attorney general,” Schiff claimed.
“I am still here. I am the same exact person I was when I was a federal prosecutor in the SDNY,” Blanche replied.
The exchange led to further criticism of Schiff, including from the Trump-appointed prosecutor in his home region:
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
“Facts are not Senator Schiff’s strong suit,” claimed First Assistant U.S. Attorney for Central California Bill Essayli.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Former Alabama federal prosecutor Jay Town called the exchange “excellent.”
“What [Blanche] is essentially saying is that the Justice Department has gone back to the fundamentals of increasing prosecutions and lowering crime nationwide, unlike the Garland DOJ targeting parents, Catholics, etc.”
Fox News Digital reached out to Schiff for comment.
Politics
Trump seeks prime-time spotlight for election claims, sparking concerns he’ll intervene
WASHINGTON — President Trump appeared poised to question the security of U.S. elections with a planned prime-time speech Thursday night, eliciting fears from Democrats and voting rights advocates that he is planning yet another play for federal control over voting in November’s midterms.
The exact reason for the speech has not been disclosed by the White House, with Trump only characterizing it to reporters this week as “really, really big news.” He confirmed it would have to do with “free and fair elections.”
The Washington Post reported, citing sources, that Trump planned to argue that there are vulnerabilities in the nation’s election infrastructure and claim that China had accessed U.S. voter data. The White House declined to confirm any such details Wednesday.
The announcement of the speech set off concerns among the president’s political opponents, as well as elections experts and voting rights advocates, that Trump could again escalate claims that the nation’s voting system is vulnerable to domestic fraud and foreign attacks.
He has previously said that Republicans should “nationalize” election administration, a job that falls to the states under the Constitution, and has pressured his party to tighten federal voting rules.
“We don’t know anything about what he might say … or what he might try to do with his very limited powers, as the president, over elections,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research. “I expect we’re going to hear a lot of rehashed and debunked claims.”
The president could potentially use new claims to argue that the nation is facing an emergency in upcoming elections that necessitates further federal intervention into voting, Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections, said in an interview with The Times.
“This is going to be the rationale for declaring a national emergency,” Morelle said. “It’s transparent that he is creating the emergency and he’s creating the evidence out of whole cloth to suggest there is an emergency.”
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections, told The Times on Wednesday that Trump was using a known playbook to “[sow] doubt about the outcome before a single vote has been cast.”
“All signs show that tomorrow’s speech will be more of the same: debunked conspiracy theories offered up not because they’re true, but because chaos and doubt are the only cards he has left to play,” Padilla said.
The speech, which Trump announced on social media Monday, comes four months ahead of midterm elections that will determine whether his party retains legislative control in Washington.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt dismissed news reports about what Trump might say in the 6 p.m. PDT speech as speculation, and said “nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say.”
The address also comes as Trump’s ceasefire with Iran has fallen apart, renewing expectations for increased gas prices, and his approval rating on the economy has steadily dropped. On Tuesday, it also became public that Trump had paid $5.6 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll, as ordered by a jury that in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.
“What we’re going to be talking about Thursday is, it doesn’t get bigger,” Trump told reporters who asked Tuesday about the speech. “Because without free and fair elections you don’t have a country.”
Trump has spread baseless claims of widespread election fraud for years. But his prioritization of his claims about the voting system — even as much of the nation’s attention is on cost-of-living issues — has been on particularly clear display in recent days.
He has aggressively lobbied reluctant Republican senators to pass his voter ID legislation, refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill over it; he fired all remaining members of the bipartisan U.S. Elections Assistance Commission; and his Justice Department said it would send election monitors to six states.
Since the midterm primaries began, Trump has also sown doubt about election security — chiefly in California, where he suggested Democrats had cheated or attempted to in the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral primaries.
Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, whose state was often at the center of Trump’s 2020 fraud claims, said the president’s speech posed a threat to voting rights.
“I expect him to use whatever he puts out there on Thursday as a pretext, either for some attempted unconstitutional use of federal power to interfere in the election,” Ossoff said Tuesday on MS Now, “or to give his proxies and loyalists in state and local jurisdictions some cover for whatever they might attempt, or to lay the groundwork for challenging the result.”
Any effort to federalize or take over elections would face serious legal obstacles, said Nahal Kazemi, a Chapman University law professor. Although Congress can pass laws regarding election administration, as it did with the Voting Rights Act, the executive branch doesn’t play a role in running elections.
“You run into essentially a brick wall that is the Constitution, which makes very plain that states run elections,” Kazemi said.
When it comes to concerns about foreign interference, experts say there is little evidence of other countries attempting to hack systems or change votes. Instead, foreign actors have largely operated via disinformation campaigns, as the U.S. determined had occurred in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
“Of the information that is available to us now, there’s no reason to be alarmed about the possibility that a foreign adversary is going to take over election systems,” said Kazemi, who has studied foreign election interference.
One of the things that helps make American elections generally secure, she said, is that they are not centralized but are run by thousands of counties. Hacking into so many voting systems would be extraordinarily difficult for a foreign adversary, she said.
Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said California “takes elections security extremely seriously” and has one of the most secure systems in the country, subject to strict voter verification measures and intense chain of custody and auditing procedures.
Democrats have worked with elections experts in recent months on attempts to assure the public that U.S. elections are safe and secure. They have also tried to counter claims by Trump that mail ballots and voting machines are unreliable.
A slew of 2020 election reviews, including by Trump’s first administration, concluded that Trump lost and Biden won. Election experts say there is no evidence that widespread fraud determined the outcome of the election.
A judge also found that claims pushed by Trump and his attorneys that the company Dominion Voting Systems manipulated votes cast through its machines in favor of Biden were untrue.
-
Florida6 minutes ago‘Experimental explosion’ reported off Central Florida coast, experts say
-
Georgia12 minutes agoEverything From Georgia Tech LB Kyle Efford At ACC Media Days
-
Hawaii18 minutes agoNew Honolulu police chief plans to launch drone program to help catch crime
-
Idaho23 minutes agoBoating, beaches, and mountain scenery: Escape to this bright blue Idaho reservoir
-
Illinois30 minutes ago
Illinois awards AD Josh Whitman a new contract worth more than $31 million over the next 10 years
-
Indiana36 minutes agoWATCH | Drone video captures Big Boy rolling through Northwest Indiana
-
Iowa42 minutes agoJaylen Raynor Wisely Predicted To Be Starting Quarterback for Iowa State Football
-
Kansas48 minutes ago
Chiefs Name Burns & McDonnell as Owner’s Representative for New Practice Facility and Headquarters in Olathe