Connect with us

Politics

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to what happened to the interim spending bill

Published

on

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to what happened to the interim spending bill

The 1,547-page interim spending bill to avoid a government shutdown is effectively dead. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has all but yanked the plan off the floor after President-elect Trump, Vice President-elect Vance and Elon Musk torched the package to avoid a government shutdown this weekend and fund the government through March 14.

Had House Republicans had the votes to pass the bill – without leaning too heavily on Democrats – Republicans may have been able to pass the bill late Wednesday afternoon before the intervention of Mssrs. Trump and Vance. But there was just too much grassroots pressure, sparked by Musk on X and elsewhere.

HOUSE GOP LEADERS SCRAMBLE FOR PLAN B AFTER TRUMP, MUSK LEAD CONSERVATIVE FURY AGAINST SPENDING BILL

The stopgap spending package proved unpopular due to its size, and various legislative ornaments festooned on the bill like a Christmas tree. Conservatives were expecting Johnson to handle the spending plan differently this year at the holidays. But it backfired. Badly.

It’s notable that Mr. Trump did not weigh in until the 11th hour. He also demanded a debt ceiling increase. That’s something which faced the President-elect in the first quarter of the year and threatened to derail any legislative agenda or potentially spook the markets.

Advertisement

Johnson’s decision to veer off course – despite touting the bill heartily on Fox this morning – underscores several things.

President-Elect Donald Trump reacts during his meeting with Prince William, Prince of Wales at the Embassy of the United Kingdoms Residence on December 7, 2024 in Paris, France. (Oleg Nikishin/Getty Images)

This is a sign of things to come once President-elect Trump is in office. And that could present problems for Johnson as he may be at the whim of decisions by the new President?

Why did Johnson pull the bill?

It was wildy unpopular with his rank and file. But it devolved further once Musk and the President-elect got infused themselves. 

Advertisement

MATT GAETZ REPORT BY HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE TO BE RELEASED

In many respects, Johnson’s decision to pull the bill was all about January 3. That’s the day of the Speaker’s vote. With 434 members to start the new Congress, Johnson needs 218 votes. Otherwise, he lacks a majority and cannot become Speaker. The House must vote repeatedly – as it did in January 2023 – before electing former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) five days later in what was the longest Speaker’s race since the 1850s. 

Johnson tried to salvage himself in the Speaker’s vote by adding emergency agriculture spending to the bill. But Johnson is now trying to salvage himself by coming up with a new bill. 

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) listens during a news conference following the Republican conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on January 17, 2024, in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

The irony is that Johnson did not want to create drama before Christmas with a spending package. But drama is exactly what he got in what quickly became the worst Congressional holiday standoff since the fiscal cliff in 2012 or a government shutdown threat in 2014.

Advertisement

So here’s the $64,000 Question: What play does Johnson call next?

Does he do a clean CR to fund the government with nothing attached? Is it a bill that just re-ups current funding coupled with disaster aid? Do they attach a debt ceiling suspension as President-elect Trump has requested?

RFK JR SET TO FACE ABORTION, VACCINE SCRUTINY IN SIT-DOWNS WITH SENATORS ON CAPITOL HILL

And then the biggest question of all: can ANYTHING pass at all? Especially without votes from the Democrats?

Johnson has a tranche of conservatives who won’t vote for any CR at all. Many of them would also not vote for a debt ceiling increase, either. 

Advertisement

And even if there is a new bill, do conservatives insist on waiting three days to ponder that bill? That triggers a government shutdown right there.

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

The deadline is 11:59:59 pm ET on Friday.  

So this is going to require someone to pull a rabbit out of a hat. 

President-elect Trump’s maneuver today is reminiscent of a similar move he made in December 2019, which sparked the longest government shutdown in history. 

Advertisement

Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), then-Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and others thought they had a deal to fund the government and avoid a Christmas-time shutdown. 

The Senate voted for the bill. Senators even sat in the back of the chamber and sang Christmas carols during the vote. 

Mr. Trump then balked at the last minute. House Republicans followed suit. The government shut down for more than a month. 

Advertisement

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending