Connect with us

Politics

House Republicans face down Dem attacks, protests to pull all-nighter on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

Published

on

House Republicans face down Dem attacks, protests to pull all-nighter on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

Three key committees in the process of putting together President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” are expected to work through the night to advance their respective portions of the Republican agenda.

The House Agriculture Committee, the Energy & Commerce Committee and the Ways & Means Committee are all holding meetings aimed at advancing key parts of Trump’s bill.

Sources told Fox News Digital they expected the Energy & Commerce and Ways & Means meetings, which began on Tuesday afternoon, to last upwards of 20 hours each. The Agriculture panel’s markup is also expected to last into Wednesday.

Democrats on each committee, meanwhile, have prepared a barrage of attacks and accusations against GOP lawmakers looking to gut critical welfare programs.

ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION

Advertisement

President Donald Trump is pushing House Republicans to get his budget bill over the line. (Getty Images)

Sparks flew early at the Energy & Commerce Committee meeting with protesters both inside and outside the room repeatedly attempting to disrupt proceedings – with 26 people arrested by Capitol Police.

Protesters against Medicaid cuts, predominately in wheelchairs, remained outside the budget markup for several hours as representatives inside debated that and other critical facets under the committee’s broad jurisdiction.

Inside the budget markup, Democrats and Republicans sparred along party lines over Medicaid cuts. Democrats repeatedly claimed the Republican budget proposal will cut vital Medicaid services. 

Many Democrats shared how Medicaid services have saved their constituents’ lives and argued that millions of Americans could lose coverage under the current proposal.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Republicans accused Democrats of lying to the American people about Medicaid cuts – a word Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, deterred his colleagues from using. Tensions arose when the word was repeated as Democrats called it a mischaracterization of their testimonies.

Republicans have contended that their bill only seeks to cut waste, fraud, and abuse of the Medicaid system, leaving more of its resources for vulnerable populations that truly need it. 

That committee was tasked with finding $880 billion in spending cuts to offset Trump’s other funding priorities. Guthrie told House Republicans on a call Sunday night that they’d found upwards of $900 billion in cuts.

Democrats have seized on Republican reforms to Medicaid, including heightened work requirements and shifting more costs to certain states, as a political cudgel. 

At one point late in the evening, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made an appearance at the Energy & Commerce panel’s meeting.

Advertisement
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries speaking

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries showed up to the Energy & Commerce Committee hearing. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“I just want to mention our Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is here because of his concern about Medicaid. Thank you,” the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said.

But tensions remain between moderate Republicans and conservatives about the level of cuts the committee is seeking to the former Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act green energy tax subsidies.

The meeting at the Ways & Means Committee, the House’s tax-writing panel, had relatively little fanfare but was equally contentious as Democrats attempted to offer amendments to preserve Affordable Care Act tax credits and changes to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap.

At one point, Reps. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, and Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., got into a heated exchange over SALT, with Suozzi pushing Van Duyne on whether she’d ever been to New York.

Van Duyne earlier called Texas a “donor state” in terms of taxes, arguing, “We should not have to pay to make up for the rich folks in New York who are getting raped by their local and state governments.”

Advertisement

Suozzi later pointed out Van Duyne was born and went to college in upstate New York – leading to audible gasps in the room.

Van Duyne said there was “a reason” she left.

BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT’S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY

“We’re sorry you left New York, but in some ways it may have worked out better for all of us,” Suozzi said.

The SALT deduction cap, however, is still a politically tricky issue even as House lawmakers debate what Republicans hoped would be the final bill.

Advertisement

The legislation would raise the $10,000 SALT deduction cap to $30,000 for most single and married tax filers – a figure that Republicans in higher cost-of-living areas said was not enough.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., threatened to vote against the final bill if the new cap remains.

As the committee’s marathon meeting continued, a group of blue state Republicans are huddling with House GOP leaders to find a compromise on a way forward.

Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., hinted at tensions in the meeting when he posted on X that Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., a member of the SALT Caucus and Ways & Means Committee, “wasn’t involved in today’s meeting” because her district required “something different than mine and the other most SALTY five.”

Malliotakis had told Fox News Digital she was supportive of the $30,000 cap. She’s also the only member of the SALT Caucus on the critical tax-writing panel.

Advertisement
Beth Van Duyne on Capitol Hill

Rep. Beth Van Duyne got into a heated back-and-forth with Rep. Tom Suozzi.

The Agriculture Committee, which began its meeting on Tuesday evening, saw Democrats waste no time in accusing Republicans of trying to gut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially known as food stamps.

Rep. Adam Gray, D-Calif., accused Republicans of worrying that “somebody is getting a meal they didn’t deserve or kids are getting too fat” instead of more critical issues.

Republicans, like Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, touted the bill’s inclusion of crop insurance for young farmers, increasing opportunity for export markets, and helping invest in national animal disaster centers aimed at preventing and mitigating livestock illness.

He also said Republicans were working to “secure” SNAP from waste and abuse.

Advertisement

House and Senate Republicans are working on Trump’s agenda via the budget reconciliation process, which allows the party in power to sideline the minority by lowering the Senate’s threshold for passage to a simple majority, provided the legislation at hand deals with spending, taxes or the national debt.

Trump wants Republicans to use the maneuver for a sweeping bill on his tax, border, immigration, energy and defense priorities.

Two sources familiar with the plan said the House Budget Committee intends to advance the full bill, the first step to getting the legislation to a House-wide vote, on Friday.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Video: The Efforts to Erase Black History

Published

on

Video: The Efforts to Erase Black History

President Trump’s executive orders have sought to reframe the history of race and culture in America. Erica L. Green, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, describes how the orders have led to the erasing of history of the Black experience.

Continue Reading

Politics

Judge Boasberg orders Rubio to refer Trump officials' Signal messages to DOJ to ensure preservation

Published

on

Judge Boasberg orders Rubio to refer Trump officials' Signal messages to DOJ to ensure preservation

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Friday ordered Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also serving as the acting archivist, to collect any Signal messages belonging to top Trump officials that could be at risk of deletion and to refer those messages to the Department of Justice for further review.

Judge James Boasberg said his hands were tied beyond that and that he could not do anything about Signal messages that had already been deleted.

Boasberg’s order came in response to a watchdog group suing five of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet members, including Rubio, after the Atlantic published a story revealing their Signal chat discussing imminent plans to conduct airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

Boasberg, who has become one of Trump’s top judicial nemeses because of his rulings in an unrelated immigration case, said the court record shows that the five Trump officials “have thus far neglected to fulfill their duties” under the Federal Records Act.

Advertisement

JUDGE IN CROSSHAIRS OF TRUMP DEPORTATION CASE ORDERS PRESERVATION OF SIGNAL MESSAGES

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new policies surrounding visas. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The judge said American Oversight, the left-leaning watchdog that brought the lawsuit, made a strong case that the Cabinet officials have used Signal, an encrypted messaging app, to communicate for work purposes and that they have allowed the messages to auto-delete, likely rendering them permanently lost.

But in the context of the Federal Records Act, Boasberg said he had limited options to address American Oversight’s allegations aside from demanding that Rubio ask Attorney General Pam Bondi to ensure compliance with the law for existing Signal messages that were at risk of deletion.

Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, indicated in a statement that the group’s lawsuit was over for now but that it was “fully prepared” to sue again if it found the Trump administration failed to comply with Boabsberg’s order.

Advertisement

JUDGE TELLS GOVERNMENT WATCHDOGS FIRED BY TRUMP THERE’S NOT MUCH SHE CAN DO FOR THEM

Hegseth and Signal app

“It should never have required court intervention to compel the acting Archivist and other agency heads to perform their basic legal duties, let alone to refer the matter to the Attorney General for enforcement,” Chukwu said.

The explosive Signal incident involved Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and others communicating about their attack plans in a chat group after then-National Security Adviser Mike Waltz apparently accidentally added an Atlantic journalist to the chat.

 

The Trump administration denied wrongdoing and insisted the communication was not “classified.” Bondi dodged a question during a press conference about investigating the incident and instead doubled down on the White House’s claims that the chat was merely “sensitive” and not “classified.”

The Pentagon inspector general launched an investigation into the incident in April in response to a bipartisan request from the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court joins Trump and GOP in targeting California's emission standards

Published

on

Supreme Court joins Trump and GOP in targeting California's emission standards

The Supreme Court on Friday joined President Trump and congressional Republicans in siding with the oil and gas industry in its challenge to California’s drive for electric vehicles.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices revived the industry’s lawsuit and ruled that fuel makers had standing to sue over California’s strict emissions standards.

The suit argued that California and the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden were abusing their power by relying on the 1970s-era rule for fighting smog as a means of combating climate change in the 21st century.

California’s new emissions standards “did not target a local California air-quality problem — as they say is required by the Clean Air Act — but instead were designed to address global climate change,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, using italics to described the industry’s position.

The court did not rule on the suit itself but he said the fuel makers had standing to sue because they would be injured by the state’s rule.

Advertisement

“The fuel producers make money by selling fuel. Therefore, the decrease in purchases of gasoline and other liquid fuels resulting from the California regulations hurts their bottom line,” Kavanaugh said.

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed.

Jackson questioned why the court would “revive a fuel-industry lawsuit that all agree will soon be moot (and is largely moot already). … This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”

But the outcome was overshadowed by the recent actions of Trump and congressional Republicans.

With Trump’s backing, the House and Senate adopted measures disapproving regulations adopted by the Biden administration that would have allowed California to enforce broad new regulations to require “zero emissions” cars and trucks.

Advertisement

Trump said the new rules adopted by Congress were designed to displace California as the nation’s leader in fighting air pollution and greenhouse gases.

In a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, he said the disapproval measures “will prevent California’s attempt to impose a nationwide electric vehicle mandate and to regulate national fuel economy by regulating carbon emissions.”

“Our Constitution does not allow one state special status to create standards that limit consumer choice and impose an electric vehicle mandate upon the entire nation,” he said.

In response to Friday’s decision, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said “the fight for fight for clean air is far from over. While we are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow this case to go forward in the lower court, we will continue to vigorously defend California’s authority under the Clean Air Act.”

Some environmentalists said the decision greenlights future lawsuits from industry and polluters.

Advertisement

“This is a dangerous precedent from a court hellbent on protecting corporate interests,” said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This decision opens the door to more oil industry lawsuits attacking states’ ability to protect their residents and wildlife from climate change.”

Times staff writer Tony Briscoe, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending