Connect with us

Politics

House Republicans Advance Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’

Published

on

House Republicans Advance Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’

The House Budget Committee late Sunday night revived President Trump’s stalled bill to cut taxes and spending, after a handful of fiscally conservative Republicans relented and allowed it to advance even as they continued to press for deeper reductions to health and environmental programs.

The vote signaled a temporary resolution to a remarkable revolt from a group of hard-liners on the panel, who on Friday joined Democrats in opposing the bill in committee, tanking it over concerns that it did not do enough to rein in the nation’s ballooning debt.

On Sunday, after a weekend of intensive negotiations with House Republican leaders and White House officials, they switched their votes to “present,” allowing the measure to move forward without lending their explicit support. It sent the bill past a crucial procedural hurdle but indicated that there was still major trouble ahead for the package, which Speaker Mike Johnson has said he wants to be considered by the full House before Memorial Day.

“Deliberations continue to this very moment,” Representative Jodey C. Arrington of Texas, the chairman of the panel, said as he opened the session late Sunday night. “They will continue on into the week and, I suspect, right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House.”

Mr. Arrington added: “I don’t know anything about side deals or any deals. I just know we’re at a place where we can take a vote today.”

Advertisement

The vote was 17 to 16, with all four Republicans who initially voted to defeat the legislation — Representatives Chip Roy of Texas, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Andrew Clyde of Georgia — voting “present.”

In a lengthy statement on social media minutes after the vote, Mr. Roy said he and the three other conservatives had secured commitments for changes to the bill that include speeding implementation of new work requirements for Medicaid and further curtailing clean energy tax credits created by the Inflation Reduction Act. He did not offer more details about either proposal, and Republican leaders provided no information on what concessions they had promised.

But Mr. Roy did say that “the bill does not yet meet the moment,” and alluded to wanting deeper cuts to Medicaid, in a sign of the difficult path ahead.

The legislation would make the 2017 tax cuts permanent and eliminate taxes on tips and overtime pay, fulfilling the president’s campaign promise. It also would raise spending on the military and immigration enforcement. Cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, education and subsidies for clean energy would offset part of the price of the bill, though they would not cover the entire cost of $3.8 trillion over 10 years.

The four Republicans on the panel voted against the legislation the first time the budget panel met, protesting the timeline for the work requirements for Medicaid recipients — which the bill would not impose until 2029, after the next presidential election — and the provisions targeting the clean energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, which the measure would partially but not completely repeal.

Advertisement

Work requirements are broadly popular among congressional Republicans, and even those who have balked at other cuts to Medicaid have said they could support such requirements.

In an interview on Sunday on Fox News, Mr. Johnson said Republican leaders were trying to strike a balance between moving up the implementation date for new work requirements and giving states the time they needed to update their systems and ensure that the new laws could be enforced.

“I think we’ve got to compromise on that,” he said. “We’ll get everyone in line to do it.”

Winning support across the House G.O.P. conference for rolling back the clean energy tax credits created under President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in the Inflation Reduction Act could be trickier.

The bill would sharply curtail most big tax credits for clean energy, but it did not eliminate all of the provisions in the law. That was a key demand of the ultraconservatives, who said their party should have no problem repealing a statute that Democrats passed on their own through reconciliation, over unified Republican opposition.

Advertisement

But at least three dozen Republicans in the House, many who represent districts that have benefited from the clean energy tax credits, have called for preserving at least some of the incentives, such as for nuclear power or domestic manufacturing, to protect jobs and bolster U.S. energy security.

There are still other outstanding issues that must be resolved in order for the legislation to pass on the House floor.

One group of moderate holdouts from New York and other higher-tax states is threatening to withhold its votes unless the bill includes a substantial increase to the state and local tax, or SALT, deduction.

Some Republicans, including Representative Nick LaLota of New York, have floated the idea of paying for the larger deduction by allowing the top income bracket to revert to where it was before the 2017 tax cuts, jumping back to 39.6 percent from 37 percent.

“It’s a fiscally responsible move that reflects the priorities of the new Republican Party,” Mr. LaLota wrote in a social media post. “Protect working families, address the deficit, fix the unfair SALT cap, and safeguard programs like Medicaid and SNAP, without raising taxes on the middle class.”

Advertisement

Maya C. Miller and James C. McKinley Jr. contributed reporting.

Politics

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump legal group seeking access to a trove of federal judiciary documents, including from a body overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – putting an end to a protracted legal fight brought by Trump allies seeking to access key judicial documents. 

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee assigned to the case earlier this year, dismissed the long-shot lawsuit brought by the America First Legal Foundation, the pro-Trump group founded by White House policy adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first term; Miller, now back in the White House, is no longer affiliated with AFL.

McFadden ultimately dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying Thursday that two groups responsible for certain regulatory and administrative functions for the federal judiciary are an extension of the judicial branch, and therefore protected by the same exemptions to federal laws granted to the judiciary.

“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” McFadden said.

Advertisement

TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON VOTING BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES AMID FLURRY OF LEGAL SETBACKS

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen at the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The lawsuit by AFL was first reported by Fox News Digital earlier this year. It named both Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and sought access to a trove of judicial documents from both bodies under the Freedom of Information Act.

AFL accused both groups of performing regulatory actions that the lawsuit argued exceeded the scope of the “core functions” of the judiciary, and which it argued should subject the groups to the FOIA requests as a result.

AFL cited recent actions the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office had taken in 2023 to “accommodate” requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an “ethics code” for justices on the high court.

Advertisement

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL argued.

“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts, they said.

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

McFadden disagreed, rejecting the group’s argument that “courts” under FOIA refers only to judges. He concluded that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are components of the judicial branch and therefore exempt from FOIA.

Advertisement

“Indeed, if America First were right that only judges and ‘law clerks,’ who ‘directly report to the judge,’ count as part of ‘the courts,’ numerous questions arise, and senseless line drawing ensues,” he said in a memo opinion accompanying his order. “Rather, FOIA’s exclusion reflects that courts include a full range of ‘judicial adjuncts,’ from ‘clerks’ to ‘court reporters,’ who perform ‘tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.’” 

Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, had argued in their lawsuit earlier this year that the Judicial Conference’s duties are “executive functions” and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers “who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers.” 

Courts “definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the group had argued.

The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. Overseen by the chief justice, it issues policy recommendations and reports to Congress as needed.

TRUMP IS THREATENING TO ‘FEDERALIZE’ DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT 

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C. ((Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty))

The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things.

The news comes as President Donald Trump, in his first year back in the White House, has relied heavily on executive orders to advance his agenda — a strategy that has accelerated implementation of campaign promises but also prompted a surge of legal challenges.

 

Trump’s actions sparked hundreds of federal lawsuits this year alone, sending tensions skyrocketing between the executive branch and the courts, including federal judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s biggest priorities in his second term. 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

Published

on

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Advertisement

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Advertisement

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Advertisement

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Advertisement

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

Published

on

Video: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

new video loaded: President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

transcript

transcript

President Trump Reclassifies Marijuana With Executive Order

Marijuana was downgraded from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug on Thursday. The reclassification does not legalize cannabis, but it does ease restrictions on the substance and allows for more research.

Today, I’m pleased to announce that I will be signing an executive order to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance with legitimate medical uses. We have people begging for me to do this. I want to emphasize that the order I am about to sign is not the legalization or it doesn’t legalize marijuana in any way, shape, or form, and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug — has nothing to do with that.

Advertisement
Marijuana was downgraded from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug on Thursday. The reclassification does not legalize cannabis, but it does ease restrictions on the substance and allows for more research.

December 18, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending