Connect with us

Politics

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Published

on

Senate rejects an initial attempt to ban Trump’s .8-billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

Advertisement

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

Advertisement

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

Advertisement

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Advertisement

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

Advertisement

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

Politics

Trump could hand prized stealth jets to NATO ally once seen as alliance headache

Published

on

Trump could hand prized stealth jets to NATO ally once seen as alliance headache

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he plans to lift U.S. sanctions on Turkey and signaled he is prepared to move forward with the long-stalled sale of F-35 stealth fighter jets, marking a dramatic reversal in U.S. policy toward the NATO ally years after Ankara was expelled from the program for its purchase of a Russian missile defense system.

Speaking alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during a bilateral meeting at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, Tuesday, Trump said his administration would remove sanctions imposed on Turkey’s defense sector.

“I can tell you we’re going to be taking the sanctions off, OK?” Trump said. “I don’t want him to waste his time answering that question. It’s time. We don’t sanction friends.”

TRUMP BETS ON FORMER NATO TROUBLEMAKER AS TURKEY’S STRATEGIC VALUE SURGES

Advertisement

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan welcomes US President Donald Trump at Ankara Airport, who is paying an official visit to Turkey ahead of the 36th NATO Heads of State and Government Summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 07, 2026. (Dogukan Keskinkilic/Pool via REUTERS)

Asked whether he would sell F-35 fighter jets to Turkey despite existing legal restrictions tied to Ankara’s purchase of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system, Trump indicated he was open to doing so.

“Many people, including the people sitting right here thinks why wouldn’t we do that?” Trump said. “Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal.”

Pressed on concerns about Turkey’s continued possession of the S-400, Trump dismissed them.

“I have no concerns about anything.”

Advertisement

The remarks represent Trump’s clearest indication yet that he intends to restore defense ties with Turkey, building on months of efforts to revive military cooperation with one of NATO’s largest armed forces after years of strained relations.

Turkey was removed from the multinational F-35 program in 2019 after taking delivery of the Russian-made S-400 air defense system, prompting Washington to argue that operating the Kremlin-built system alongside America’s most advanced stealth fighter could expose sensitive U.S. technology. Congress subsequently imposed sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA.

‘WRITTEN IN OUR DNA’: POLISH PILOTS WHO REMEMBER SOVIET RULE PREPARE FOR AMERICA’S MOST LETHAL FIGHTER JET

Congress long has been one of the biggest obstacles to restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35, with bipartisan lawmakers arguing that Ankara should not receive America’s most advanced fighter aircraft while it continues to possess the Russian-made S-400 air defense system and pursues policies they say run counter to U.S. interests.

A U.S. airmen watches an Air Force F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter aircraft approach for the first time on July 14, 2011 at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. (Samuel King Jr./U.S. Air Force)

Advertisement

Beyond political opposition, the Trump administration also faces legal hurdles. 

While the president has authority over sanctions policy, Congress enacted additional restrictions after Turkey’s purchase of the S-400. Section 1245 of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act bars the transfer of F-35 aircraft to Turkey unless the executive branch certifies that Ankara has met statutory requirements related to the Russian missile system.

In recent days, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers urged Trump not to move forward with an F-35 sale, arguing that doing so without satisfying those legal requirements would violate U.S. law and undermine national security. 

Lawmakers also have warned that Turkey’s continued possession of the S-400, support for Hamas and tensions with fellow NATO allies Greece and Cyprus raise broader concerns about restoring Ankara’s access to the stealth fighter.

Russian S-400 missile air defence systems are seen before the military parade to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the battle of Stalingrad in World War Two, in the city of Volgograd, Russia February 2, 2018. REUTERS/Tatyana Maleyeva – UP1EE220T3A2B

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Pentagon has maintained that the S-400’s sophisticated radar could collect data on the F-35’s radar signature and electronic profile during routine operations, potentially allowing Russia to better detect and defeat the aircraft in a future conflict if that information were shared with Moscow.

When the Trump administration removed Turkey from the F-35 program in 2019, the White House said “the F-35 cannot coexist with a Russian intelligence collection platform that will be used to learn about its advanced capabilities.” 

Pentagon acquisition chief Ellen Lord similarly warned at the time that allowing Turkey to operate both systems would jeopardize the long-term security of the F-35 program because “much of the F-35’s strength lies in its stealth capabilities.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Trump’s World Cup meddling only made matters worse for rattled U.S. squad

Published

on

Commentary: Trump’s World Cup meddling only made matters worse for rattled U.S. squad

Is everybody happy now? You good, Mr. President?

Put our boys in a blender, President Trump did, with those phone calls to FIFA President Gianni Infantino. Messed with their mojo by politicking to get American striker Folarin Balogun’s red card rescinded.

We’ll have to check VAR, but it might be the first time Trump succeeded at having a decision overturned.

Probably because this time what he sought to overturn — discipline stemming from Balogun’s accidental contact in the United States’ victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina — actually was unjust. Balogun should not have received a red card.

The problem is, having our President butt in here was a joke. Unfunny and out of bounds, offsides, an own goal — all of the things.

Advertisement

It put the U.S. team at the center of a geopolitical maelstrom, which is exactly what they did not need in the hours before the biggest match of their lives and the biggest match in the history of the U.S. men’s soccer program.

Some 40 or 50 million viewers were expected to tune in; how many of them watched for the first time? And what sort of impression did Monday’s 4-1 blunder-filled meltdown against Belgium make? That we stink at soccer — still?

If you were one of them, please, believe your soccer-fan friends when they tell you the Americans played much better in previous matches.

But so much for a magical run. On their home turf, the Americans pulled up lame before the finish line (aka, for the U.S. team’s purposes, its first quarterfinals since 2002).

To their credit, after the debacle, members of the U.S. team didn’t complain about anything being rigged. They didn’t use the distraction as an excuse. And they didn’t point fingers at anyone — anyone at all.

Advertisement

U.S. striker Folarin Balogun (20) walks to the locker room at halftime against Belgium in the World Cup on Monday at Lumen Field in Seattle.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We’re playing on home soil,” defender Chris Richards said. “So the only pressure we put on ourselves is to perform for our country, and ultimately didn’t feel the way we wanted to today. But I don’t think the antics of the last 24 hours had anything to do with it.”

No, they said the “debate,” or “outside noise” or “political manipulation” — as Tim Ream, Alex Freeman and coach Mauricio Pochettino described what others are calling “Balogate” — were not to blame for the gut-punch that answered the question: Why not us?

Advertisement

Because the U.S. is not yet good enough to beat the world’s great teams. Especially not when their pregame preparation includes having to try to block out an international uproar.

To have any hope against the Belgians in the round of 16 — a matchup between FIFA’s Nos. 9- and 17-ranked sides — the Americans needed to be going full-tilt, to be focused and ferocious and probably also a little bit lucky.

Instead, they looked shook, rattled. And they got rolled.

They were the worst version of themselves at the worst time, which was so weird from a team that had been on its front foot from the first whistle against Paraguay.

Not Monday. Against Belgium, they were on their heels from the outset. Heavy touches, slow afoot, playing like they had the weight of the World Cup on their shoulders.

Advertisement

And all that White House maddening meddling — for what?

Balogun started and played most of the match, but it could just as well have been reserve striker Ricardo Pepi. Or you or me, Balogun was that ineffective.

His play of the day came postmatch, when he approached Belgian coach Rudi Garcia and the two had a respectful exchange. A real diplomat, that Brooklyn-born, Britain-raised American by birthright.

This loss was a real team effort, of course. Christian Pulisic came off in the 59th minute after twisting his right ankle — leaving this World Cup without a goal in the four matches he appeared.

Advertisement

Matt Freese, the Harvard-educated starting goalkeeper, had a brain cramp of epic proportions when he stepped outside of the box and failed to corral a ball. Belgium’s Charles De Ketelaere kicked it loose and set up Hans Vanaken, whose shot traveled behind Ream for an easy score that made it 3-1 in the 57th minute.

There was a lot of poor decision-making with this match, on and off the pitch.

In the end, Trump’s appeal to Infantino did more harm than good. But what if some good could come from it?

Hey, FIFA, what about giving teams a process to appeal cards, like our American athletes in the NBA, NFL and MLB have?

Offering a suggestion box wouldn’t be opening Pandora’s box, not if it were a transparent and regular part of the game that would, hopefully, offer increasingly fair outcomes in a tournament where every match is so monumental — as our President recognized, much too enthusiastically.

Advertisement
U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino waves to the crown after a 4-1 loss to Belgium at the World Cup on Monday.

U.S. coach Mauricio Pochettino waves to the crown after a 4-1 loss to Belgium at the World Cup on Monday.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Continue Reading

Politics

Preliminary Hearing for Man Accused of Killing Charlie Kirk Starts in Utah

Published

on

Prosecutors on Monday began laying out their case against the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. It was the first day of a weeklong preliminary hearing that will determine whether or not there is enough evidence against the accused killer to stand trial.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending