U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat, speaks during a press conference inside the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2025. Also pictured is Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., left, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats blocked legislation Wednesday that would have established penalties for health care professionals who don’t provide medical care for infants born following an attempted abortion, arguing the bill would have kept parents from making decisions about care for newborns delivered early following a fatal fetal diagnosis.

Republicans said the issue should lend itself to common ground between the two political parties, citing a “loophole” in federal law that could potentially permit health care providers to allow an infant to die, instead of using medical interventions.

The 52-47 procedural vote needed the support of at least 60 senators to advance under the chamber’s legislative filibuster rules, but no Democrats voted to move the bill toward final passage. Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty didn’t cast a vote.

The vote marked the first time this year Republicans, who now control both the House and Senate, brought up an abortion bill for debate. The vote took place on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion in 1973, but was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, who sponsored the eight-page bill, said debate on the legislation was “not just an academic issue,” but one with real-world implications.

“It’s rare, but the question is, what do we do in those situations? How do we track this? How do we engage on it?,” he said.

When an abortion results in a live child, Lankford said, “the current practice is everyone kind of backs away and allows the child to die on the table by exposure because it is against American law in every single state to take the life of a child. But if everybody just steps back and watches the child die that’s okay.”

Lankford cited the story of Melissa Ohden, a woman he says lived following an attempted abortion because a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, or NICU, nurse noticed her crying and breathing in a pile of medical waste, before rushing her to the emergency department for medical care. Ohden is founder and CEO of the Abortion Survivors Network.

“It was years later that she learned her adopted mom had adopted her because her birth mom literally didn’t know she still existed. Her birth mom was never told that the abortion, quote unquote, didn’t work,” he said.  

‘Killing a baby is illegal in every single state’

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during a floor speech Tuesday the bill was a “sham” and a “disgrace,” before noting that “killing a baby is illegal in every single state.”

“In fact, we passed a law in 2002 that made that crystal clear. I would know because I was here. It passed unanimously,” Murray said. “Doctors already have a legal obligation to provide appropriate medical care to any infant born in this country.”

The legislation, she said, would have created “a new government mandate that would override the best judgment of grieving families who find out their fetus has a fatal condition.”

“And it would create new, medically unnecessary barriers for doctors and patients, at a time when doctors already have their hands tied when it comes to providing basic reproductive health care,” Murray said.

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said during a press conference on Wednesday ahead of the vote she wasn’t concerned about Republicans using the vote against vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2026.

“I have run now in seven statewide races in New Hampshire and in every single one of those races, I have been attacked by Republicans for my support for allowing women to make their own decisions,” Shaheen said.

“It’s not a decision that I should make as a senator, that the court should make, that the men who are in the Senate should make,” she added. “It’s a decision for women and their families. And for those people who don’t understand that, they are on the wrong side of morality on this one.”

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff and Michigan Sen. Gary Peters are the two most vulnerable Democrats up for election in 2026, both representing states President Donald Trump won in November’s presidential election.

Details of Senate legislation

Lankford’s bill would have required medical providers “to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

The bill adds that anyone who “intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child” would be charged with “intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.”

It is already illegal to kill children, or adults, under federal law as well as state laws.

The House is set to vote on its own version of the bill, sponsored by Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner and co-sponsored by 130 GOP lawmakers, later this week. But without Democratic backing in the Senate, the bill won’t make it to Trump’s desk.

Wagner’s House bill appeared extremely similar to the Senate version, though the two weren’t marked as “related bills” on Wednesday in the congressional database.

The House approved a version of the bill two years ago following a mostly party-line 220-210 vote, with one Democrat voting for the measure and one voting “present.”

The bill didn’t come up for a vote in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time.

Congress approved a similarly named, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, more than two decades ago, with broadly bipartisan support.

Groups weigh in

Dr. Stella M. Dantas, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in a statement sent to States Newsroom that the “offensively named legislation does not reflect the reality of abortion later in pregnancy, harms families who receive devastating diagnoses and restricts their ability to choose the path of medical care that is right for them.”

“This legislation is not evidence-based,” Dantas wrote. “Its impacts fall with crushing weight on families trying to access reproductive care in devastating circumstances and limits how clinicians are able to provide care.”

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists writes on a webpage about the differences between abortion and perinatal palliative care that “the idea of ‘abortions’ being performed after delivery of a fetus is” misinformation and that “no such procedure exists.”

Perinatal palliative care, ACOG explains, “encompasses a coordinated care strategy that centers on maximizing quality of life and comfort for newborns who have life-limiting conditions in early infancy.”

“When providing perinatal palliative care, obstetrician–gynecologists’ chief aim is to alleviate the newborn’s suffering and honor the values of the patients involved—namely, the newborn’s parent or parents,” the website states. “Ultimately, the parent or parents, in consultation with their physician, decide which course of perinatal palliative care to pursue.”

Eighteen medical organizations — including ACOG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the American Academy of Nursing and the American Academy of Pediatrics — sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers not to pass the bill.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser released a written statement that the 2024 election showed Americans “have clearly rejected the extreme pro-abortion agenda.”

“We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to that baby fighting for his or her life, whether in a hospital or an abortion center, whether that little one is deemed ‘wanted’ or not,” Dannenfelser wrote. “These children must not be discarded like trash. With a new administration in Washington and new majorities in the Senate and House, there has never been a better or more urgent time to protect the life of every newborn equally.”

A SBA webpage about the legislation notes that while the 2002 law was “a step in the right direction,” it didn’t include any “enforcement mechanisms.”

“Federal law and 31 states do not adequately protect the lives of infants born alive after botched abortions (state and federal laws are not necessarily redundant, either),” the webpage states.

Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote in a statement to States Newsroom the bill “misrepresents the reality of care later in pregnancy and seeks to criminalize and intimidate health care providers, despite existing laws that already ensure appropriate medical care is provided.”

“By perpetuating disinformation and stigma, this bill undermines reproductive autonomy and paves the way for political interference in deeply personal and painful decisions, particularly for families facing tragic situations such as fatal fetal diagnoses,” Bernstein wrote.

The Guttmacher Institute, she wrote, “strongly opposes this bill, as it disregards the complexities of people’s lives, attempts to criminalize providers, and perpetuates misinformation about abortion care.”

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and wife Melania Trump arrive at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., walks in back of them.  (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republican congressional leaders huddled with President Donald Trump on Tuesday in search of a clear path forward to make sweeping changes to the country’s border security, energy policy and tax code, though they remained stuck on a question they’ve been mulling for weeks.

Republicans secured unified control of government by promising voters they’d pass new laws addressing major policy areas, but aren’t yet aligned over whether to bundle all the various changes together in an omnibus measure, or to pass them in two separate packages.

GOP leaders also still need to determine where far-right members and centrists overlap in dozens of areas, since votes from nearly every Republican in Congress will be necessary to get any bill to Trump’s desk.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after arriving back at the Capitol that negotiators had yet to reach consensus on how to package their policy proposal. It was Trump’s second day in office and the first gathering of top Republicans at the White House with him.

“Well, I think that discussion is always predicated on what we can get done and we’re obviously all interested in getting to the same destination,” Thune said.

The South Dakota Republican said in addition to working out agreement amongst themselves on reconciliation, GOP leaders need to figure out how to fund the government ahead of a March 14 deadline and how to address the country’s debt limit prior to a default date that’s expected to take place later this year.

Both of those issues will require Republicans to reach agreement with Democrats to avoid a partial government shutdown starting less than 100 days into Trump’s presidency, or a first-ever default on the country’s debt, which would likely trigger a global financial crisis.

“So there’s a lot to do and part of it is just figuring out how to stage it and what’s the best way to get all those results,” Thune said, adding with a bit of a laugh that there are a lot of “great theories” about how to get it all done this year.

“But, you know, it’s always different when you have to translate that into practice,” he said, previewing the complicated and rocky path that accompanies writing campaign promises into law.

Trump said during a press conference at the White House after the meeting that he believed the House, Senate and White House had “pretty much” figured out a strategy.

“I think we have a good situation now,” Trump said.

Tricky process

Republicans are planning to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass their border security, energy and tax proposals without needing Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

The process requires every part of the package to impact federal revenue or spending in a way that is not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian.

That could cause some challenges for the committees tasked with drafting various sections of the package in the months ahead, especially on immigration policy, which might not have the price tags that typically go along with the reconciliation process.

Democrats, for example, tried to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 per hour in a coronavirus relief bill they moved through the reconciliation process in 2021. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled its impact on the federal budget was “merely incidental,” leading Democrats to remove that provision from the larger bill.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, ranking member on the Budget Committee at the time, released a written statement in February 2021 praising the parliamentarian’s ruling on the minimum wage language.

“Very pleased the Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that a minimum wage increase is an inappropriate policy change in reconciliation,” Graham wrote at the time. “This decision reinforces reconciliation cannot be used as a vehicle to pass major legislative change — by either party — on a simple majority vote. This decision will, over time, reinforce the traditions of the Senate.”

Budget resolution

Republicans need to be on the same page about one rather than two reconciliation bills and generally about how to change U.S. law before they can officially begin the reconciliation process.

The House and Senate must vote to approve a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions before they can unlock the reconciliation process. That will require leaders to at least have some outline of what they plan to do, how much they expect it will cost and which committees hold jurisdiction over those policy areas.

House Republican leaders hope to vote on that budget resolution in February, draft the legislation in March, hold a floor vote in that chamber in early April and work out any disagreements with the Senate before late May, at which point they hope to send the entire package to Trump.

Ashley Murray and Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

Donald Trump at his inauguration ceremony in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Trump took office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump took the presidential oath of office for the second time Monday during an inauguration ceremony inside the U.S. Capitol rotunda.

The swearing-in marked the culmination of a four-year journey for Trump, whom many Republicans distanced themselves from following the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, but nonetheless supported during his third campaign for the White House. Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance of Ohio, was sworn in as vice president.

“Many people thought it was impossible for me to stage such a historic political comeback,” Trump said during his inaugural address following the swearing-in. “But as you see today, here I am — the American people have spoken.”

Trump spent much of his speech detailing the executive orders he plans to sign later Monday addressing immigration, energy and more.

“With these actions we will begin the complete restoration of America and the revolution of common sense,” he said.

He pledged to declare a national emergency at the southern border, which drew a standing ovation from the audience in the rotunda. He said all illegal entry into the United States would be “immediately halted” and vowed to begin the process of deporting “millions and millions” of undocumented immigrants.

“As commander in chief, I have no higher responsibility than to defend our country from threats and invasions, and that is exactly what I am going to do,” Trump said.

Trump defeated the Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Kamala Harris, in November’s general election, after receiving 312 Electoral College votes to her 226.

He also won the popular vote with 77.3 million votes, 49.9%, compared to Harris’ 75 million, 48.4%. Harris attended the inaugural ceremony with her husband, Doug Emhoff.

The inauguration was supposed to take place outside the Capitol building on the terrace overlooking the National Mall, but Trump announced Friday he wanted it moved indoors amid polar temperatures.

It was the first time since former President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration the ceremony was held in the rotunda. Looking on along with top government officials was a trio of billionaires — Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Some of the guests and supporters who couldn’t fit inside the rotunda watched on large screens inside the Capitol Visitor Center or at the Capital One Arena in downtown Washington, D.C. 

Trump later in the afternoon was expected to return to the arena, where he rallied with supporters on Sunday, for the traditional inaugural parade that was moved inside.

‘The envy of every nation’

Trump’s first speech of the day, in the Capitol rotunda, focused extensively on his vision for the country, in which he sharply criticized the current condition of the United States while former President Joe Biden listened.

“The Golden Age of America begins right now,” Trump said, vowing to “put America first” during his next four years in the White House.

“From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world,” he said, noting that the United States “will be the envy of every nation, and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer.”

The president, who said he wants to be a “peacemaker” and a “unifier,” pointed to the hostage and ceasefire deal made between Israel and Hamas last week.

Trump said he would declare a “national energy emergency” later Monday and reiterated his “drill, baby, drill” approach when it comes to oil and gas production.

He also called for an “External Revenue Service” that would collect “all tariffs, duties and revenues.”

Trump said he would sign an executive order to “immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”

He said he wants to create a “color-blind” and “merit-based” society and said “it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”

He also echoed his pledge to take control of the Panama Canal, to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” as well as to revert Alaska’s Mount Denali back to “Mount McKinley.”

Back to campaign rhetoric

Trump bid farewell to Biden and former first lady Jill Biden after the rotunda ceremony, before they departed on a helicopter. The Bidens were scheduled to travel to California as they began their life after the White House.

Trump then gave a freewheeling, 35-minute speech in the Capitol Visitor Center’s Emancipation Hall, which event organizers used as an overflow room to accommodate governors, lawmakers’ spouses, the diplomatic corps and others who couldn’t fit inside the rotunda.

“I just want to say you’re a younger, far more beautiful audience than I just spoke to and I want to keep it off the record,” he said, later adding he gave them the “A+ treatment.”

Trump’s second speech was more reminiscent of his campaign rallies than the official speech he gave during the rotunda ceremony. He reiterated false claims he’s made about his 2020 election loss to Biden and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that was spurred on by those false statements.

“I was going to talk about that. They said, ‘Please, don’t bring that up right now. You can bring it up tomorrow.’ I said how about now,” Trump said. “We’re giving you a little more information than we gave upstairs.”

Trump said he didn’t want to make his first speech “complicated,” he wanted to make it “beautiful and “unifying.”

“Then, when they said we have a group of people who are serious Trump fans, I said ‘This is the time to tell those stories,’” he said.

Trump also spoke at length about border security and immigration during his second speech, saying it has become a problem during Biden’s term as president.

“I think it probably was the number one issue for me back in 2015, 2016,” Trump said. “This border is much worse. We fixed the border. It was totally fixed. There was nothing to talk about.”

Flags at full staff

Trump signed several documents in the President’s Room by the U.S. Senate chamber Monday afternoon, including a proclamation that the U.S. flag be flown at full staff for this inauguration and all future inauguration days. 

Then-President Biden ordered U.S. flags to be flown at half staff until Jan. 28, the customary 30-day period, to commemorate former President Jimmy Carter, who died in December. 

Last week, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana ordered the flags at the U.S. Capitol to be flown at full staff on Inauguration Day. Some Republican-led states followed suit.

Senate moves on Trump nominees

The Senate began confirming Trump’s Cabinet nominees later Monday, taking a 99-0 vote to make former Florida Sen. Marco Rubio the secretary of state.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he plans to confirm other nominees as soon as possible, with a vote expected later this week on John Ratcliffe to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

“Our priority here in the Senate for the next few weeks is getting President Trump’s nominees confirmed, so that he has the team that he needs in place to deliver,” Thune said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, supported Rubio during the floor vote after detailing how he and others in the party will approach their advice and consent responsibility for Trump’s second term.

“We will neither rubber-stamp nominees we feel are grossly unqualified nor will we reflexively oppose nominees that deserve serious consideration,” Schumer said.

The Senate began holding hearings last week on several of Trump’s picks, including hedge fund manager Scott Bessent for Treasury secretary, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to run the Justice Department, former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum for Interior secretary, former Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth to run the Pentagon, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for Homeland Security secretary, former Texas state legislator Eric Scott Turner for Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary, and former White House budget director Russ Vought to run the Office of Management and Budget once again. 

Hearings are scheduled this week for several other nominees. 

In this 2020 photo illustration, the TikTok app is displayed on an Apple iPhone. (Photo Illustration by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump said Sunday he will sign an executive order as soon as he takes office that would delay a law that banned the popular social media app TikTok unless its parent company sells it.

“I’m asking companies not to let TikTok stay dark!” Trump said on his TruthSocial account. “ I will issue an executive order on Monday to extend the period of time before the law’s prohibitions take effect, so that we can make a deal to protect our national security. The order will also confirm that there will be no liability for any company that helped keep TikTok from going dark before my order.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday had left the law in place, and on Saturday night, TikTok went dark for U.S. users. The Associated Press reported that Google and Apple removed the app from their digital stores to comply with the law. But by midday Sunday, TikTok was again functioning.

Trump said in his post he wants to explore how to keep TikTok viable in the United States.

“I would like the United States to have a 50% ownership position in a joint venture.  By doing this, we save TikTok, keep it in good hands and allow it to say up.  Without U.S. approval, there is no Tik Tok.  With our approval, it is worth hundreds of billions of dollars – maybe trillions,” he wrote.

“Therefore, my initial thought is a joint venture between the current owners and/or new owners whereby the U.S. gets a 50% ownership in a joint venture set up between the U.S. and whichever purchase we so choose.”

The bipartisan law enacted last year required ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, to sell the platform by Sunday or face exclusion from U.S.-based app stores.

TikTok fought the law all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing First Amendment rights, but did not prevail. 

“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the court wrote in its ruling. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”

Action left to Trump

The 27-page court ruling created a bit of a dilemma for Trump, who now supports TikTok staying on Americans’ cell phones despite wanting to ban it during his first administration.

Trump wrote Friday in a post on his social media site, Truth Social, that he would address the issue once he takes office.

“I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China. The call was a very good one for both China and the U.S.A,” Trump wrote. “It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately. We discussed balancing Trade, Fentanyl, TikTok, and many other subjects. President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!”

Trump issued an executive order in 2020 to ban the video platform unless it broke from ByteDance, but reversed his position last year.

Trump’s attorney general nominee, Pam Bondi, cited “pending litigation” and declined to directly answer a question about whether she would direct the Justice Department to enforce the TikTok ban during her confirmation hearing Wednesday.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is expected to attend Trump’s inauguration Monday, according to a source familiar with the planning.

Chew will not be the only tech executive sitting nearby as Trump takes the oath of office. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, are expected to be in attendance. Both donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural.

Chew posted a video on social media Friday after the Supreme Court ruling was released thanking Trump “for his commitment to work with us to find a solution that keeps TikTok available in the United States.”

“This is a strong stand for the First Amendment and against arbitrary censorship,” he said. “As we’ve said, TikTok is a place where people can create communities, discover new interests and express themselves, including over 7 million American businesses.”

The director of national intelligence released a report in February 2024 stating that “TikTok accounts run by a (People’s Republic of China) propaganda arm reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterm election cycle in 2022.”

Bipartisan backing for law

The law requiring TikTok’s parent company to sell the app or lose access to the American social media market received bipartisan support in the House last year, following a 352-65 vote in March. The measure cleared Congress as part of a larger supplemental package a month later.

President Joe Biden signed it into law. However, he said he will not enforce it, leaving the incoming Trump administration to decide what to do.

“President Biden’s position on TikTok has been clear for months, including since Congress sent a bill in overwhelming, bipartisan fashion to the President’s desk: TikTok should remain available to Americans, but simply under American ownership or other ownership that addresses the national security concerns identified by Congress in developing this law,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote in a statement.

“Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday.”

Congress and the Biden administration pointed to warnings from national security officials about ByteDance’s ties to China’s government as the top reason to force its parent company to sell the app.

TikTok maintains that it is majority owned by global investors, including the Susquehanna International Group and Blackrock, though roughly 20% remains in the hands of its Chinese founders.

Democratic senators made an eleventh-hour pitch on Wednesday to extend ByteDance’s deadline to divest from TikTok, but Republicans blocked the effort. 

The U.S. Capitol under a blanket of snow on Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump announced Friday he will move his inauguration inside the U.S. Capitol building, instead of holding it on the terrace overlooking the National Mall, citing weather forecasts for frigid temperatures.

The inauguration was scheduled to begin around 11:30 a.m. Eastern on Monday, but it wasn’t immediately clear if that would change to accommodate an indoor ceremony.

“The weather forecast for Washington, D.C., with the windchill factor, could take temperatures into severe record lows,” Trump wrote in a social media post. “There is an Arctic blast sweeping the Country. I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!).”

Trump wrote that the ceremony, which will include speeches and his official oath of office, will be held in the Capitol rotunda.

“The various Dignitaries and Guests will be brought into the Capitol,” Trump wrote. “This will be a very beautiful experience for all, and especially for the large TV audience!”

A spokesperson for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies released a statement saying the panel “will honor the request of the President-elect and his Presidential Inaugural Committee to move the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies inside the U.S. Capitol to the Rotunda.”

Former Republican President Ronald Reagan was the first, and so far the only, president to hold his inauguration in the rotunda.

The Architect of the Capitol notes on a webpage about former inaugurations that for the Reagan inauguration, the Bible “was placed on a marble-topped table that was built for the second inaugural of Abraham Lincoln. The table was constructed with an iron baluster cast for the Capitol dome in the 1860’s.”

Trump wrote in his social media post that supporters who travel to Washington, D.C., could attend a live viewing inside the Capital One Arena, which is downtown. It will also be the site of a Trump rally on Sunday.

“We will open Capital One Arena on Monday for LIVE viewing of this Historic event, and to host the Presidential Parade,” Trump wrote. “I will join the crowd at Capital One, after my Swearing In.”

The Capital One Arena has 20,000 seats, according to its website. That is far fewer people than could stand on the hundreds of acres that make up the National Mall. 

Protesters gather to call for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment on Sept. 28, 2022, in Washington, D.C. Supporters showed up to support the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution following oral arguments in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals over an ERA-related lawsuit. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden released a statement Friday saying he believes the Equal Rights Amendment should be added as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, despite a statement from the archivist of the United States that it cannot.

Biden’s three-paragraph announcement did not explain why he waited until the last few days of his presidency to make the declaration, even though he cited Virginia ratifying the ERA nearly four years ago.

“The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment,” Biden wrote. “I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.

“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.”

Archivist differs

Biden’s statement is in strong contrast to a written statement Archivist of the United States Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko released in mid-December that said adding the ERA as an official amendment to the Constitution wasn’t possible.

“At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions,” they wrote.

“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable,” Shogan and Bosanko wrote. “The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid.

“Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.”

The ERA states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.”

ERA history

Congress approved the ERA as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1972, starting off the ratification process that was originally supposed to last seven years.

Lawmakers later extended the ratification deadline until 1982, but only 35 states, not the required 38, ratified the amendment before that deadline, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

“In 2017, acting upon the notion that the ratification deadline could be disregarded, Nevada became the 36th state to ratify the amendment,” the CRS report states. “After Illinois and Virginia, acting upon the same premise as Nevada, ratified the ERA in 2018 and 2020, respectively, the states (Illinois, Virginia, Nevada) moved the Archivist of the United States to publish and certify the amendment as part of the Constitution.”

The archivist didn’t publish and certify the amendment at the time, leading Illinois, Nevada and Virginia to file a lawsuit in January 2020.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case, saying the three states lacked standing. The D.C. Circuit Court upheld that ruling in February 2023, according to the CRS report. 

‘A historic step forward’

Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, a New Mexico Democrat, released a written statement Friday that Biden’s declaration “marks a historic step forward in the fight to make sure that no one in this country is discriminated against based on their sex.”

“For generations, women have fought tirelessly to make sure that our Constitution explicitly guarantees equal rights for all. The Equal Rights Amendment is more than words on a page—it is a commitment to equal pay for equal work, protections against gender-based violence, and the dignity and opportunity that every woman, every family, and every individual deserves,” Fernández wrote. “As a woman, a mother, and Chair of the largest-ever Democratic Women’s Caucus, I commend this step as a testament to the power of persistence and progress.

“We will continue the work to make sure that the amendment is officially ratified so these rights are protected and implemented in every corner of America.”

Billionaire hedge fund manager Scott Bessent prepares to testify before the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearing for Treasury secretary in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Jan. 16, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Treasury secretary appeared on track for Senate confirmation after a wide-ranging hearing Thursday that included substantial debate on tax policy and how tariffs would affect everyday Americans.

Scott Bessent, a hedge fund manager whom Trump announced as his pick in November, repeatedly deferred to the incoming president’s policies during the Finance Committee hearing, though he did delve into his background and beliefs as well.

GOP senators appeared far more supportive than Democrats, though Bessent hasn’t elicited the type of concerns some of his fellow nominees have from left-leaning senators.

“When it comes to your qualifications to be the next secretary of the Treasury, there is no room for debate,” Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said at the end of the hearing. “And you have shown that today here in the hearing — your background, your training, everything is tailor-made for this role. And your character and demeanor are self-evident.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the panel, argued at the outset of the hearing that Bessent didn’t meet his requirements for Treasury secretary.

“Many people, myself included, hoped that the president-elect would pick a steady hand for Treasury secretary; someone who would be a moderating force, who’d work with all sides, and especially for the interests of all Americans for a tax code that gives everybody in America a chance to get ahead, not just the people at the top,” Wyden said. “I wish I had read something that would indicate that this nominee would be the kind of Treasury secretary I described.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who introduced his fellow South Carolinian at the beginning of the three-hour hearing, said he was very qualified to hold the role.

“I’m here today to tell you, if you use qualifications as your test, this is the easiest vote you’ll ever take,” Graham said. “If your goal is to play like the election didn’t happen, then I guess you’ll vote no.”

2017 tax cut law

Republican and Democratic senators on the committee repeatedly asked Bessent about the 2017 Republican lax law that’s often referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Trump and GOP members of Congress are planning to extend the various tax policies in that law, many of which are set to expire this year.

Republicans are planning to pass their new bill through the complicated budget reconciliation process, which has strict rules, but means they won’t need to negotiate with Democrats.

Bessent said during his hearing that extending the tax policy in the 2017 law past the sunset date is “the single most important economic issue of the day.”

“If we do not renew and extend, then we will be facing an economic calamity,” Bessent said. “And as always, with financial instability, that falls on the middle- and working-class people.”

Bessent testified he favors Congress extending the 2017 law for Americans at all income levels, including those making more than $400,000, $1 million, $10 million, or even $1 billion, in response to a series of questions from Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock.

“There is no income level that I don’t think we should continue the TCJA as it was,” Bessent said.

Allowing previous, higher tax rates to go back into place for people making between $400,000 and $1 million would likely “capture an inordinate amount of small business people,” he said. 

Bessent gave a similar answer for people making more than $1 million, saying he believed higher taxes on that segment of the country would negatively affect “small business pass-through owners.”

He said the federal government should want to “put in incentives for them to invest” when asked about people making more than $10 million a year. And that people making more than $1 billion annually shouldn’t have their tax rates increased since they are “job creators.”

‘A spending problem’

While much of Bessent’s testimony focused on tax rates, which contribute most of the revenue the federal government has to spend on programs, he also spoke about the spending side of the federal ledger.

Bessent said he believes the country’s annual deficit is not the result of the government bringing in too little revenue from taxes and fees, but because Congress has approved too much spending.

“We do not have a revenue problem in the United States of America; we have a spending problem,” Bessent said. “And to be clear, this is one of the things that got me out from behind my desk and my quiet life in this campaign — was the thought that this spending is out of control.”

The federal government spent $6.1 trillion and brought in $4.4 trillion in revenue during fiscal year 2023, according to data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury Department had to borrow the rest to pay all of the country’s bills.

The bulk of that spending went to so-called mandatory programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which accounted for $3.8 trillion.

The remainder of federal spending went to what’s referred to as discretionary programs, with $805 billion for defense and $917 billion going to the domestic side of the ledger.

Bessent said during his opening statement that in order to get the country’s “fiscal house in order” he would propose that Congress “adjust federal domestic discretionary spending.”

Congress cutting all domestic discretionary spending — which goes toward hundreds of programs, including agriculture, border security, public lands and transportation — might balance the budget, though likely with significant economic consequences.

Most economists argue that to reduce or eliminate the country’s annual deficit, Congress must increase revenue and decrease spending. 

IRS direct tax filing

Bessent, if confirmed by the Senate, would have some influence over whether the IRS continues a program launched just last year that allows Americans to file their taxes for free.

When asked about preserving the Direct File program by Wyden, he only committed to doing so for this calendar year.

“I will commit that for this tax season that direct file will be operative and the American taxpayers who choose to use it, will,” he said. “And if confirmed, I will consult and study the program, and understand it better, and make sure that it works to serve the IRS’s three goals of collections, customer service and privacy.”

Tariffs eyed

Bessent didn’t go into detail during the hearing about when and how exactly Trump plans to implement tariffs once in office, though he did encourage lawmakers to watch for three specific areas.

“One will be for remedying unfair trade practices, either by industry or country — the Chinese tariffs, the steel,” Bessent said. “Two, may be for a more generalized tariff as a revenue raiser for the federal budget.”

The third type of tariff, he said, would likely focus on encouraging countries to negotiate with the United States on issues Trump views as important. 

“He believes that we’ve probably gotten over our skis … on sanctions. And that sanctions may be driving countries out of the use of the U.S. dollar so the tariffs can be used for negotiations,” Bessent said, specifically mentioning Mexico blocking fentanyl from entering the country.

Bessent maintained he doesn’t believe the tariffs will raise prices on goods for Americans, a position with which several Democrats on the panel and numerous economists outside Congress disagree.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell said she hoped the Trump administration would reconsider some of its proposed tariffs. 

“I do think we’re going to see retaliatory tariffs,” Cantwell said, adding that previous tariffs negatively affected her home state and agriculture.

Minimum wage

Bessent said he would likely advise Trump and Republicans against raising the federal minimum wage above $7.25 per hour, in response to a question from Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“I believe that the minimum wage is more of a statewide and regional issue,” he said.

Russian sanctions

Bessent said he would fully support efforts to raise sanctions on Russia in trying to end the war in Ukraine, calling when and where the Biden administration implemented tariffs “not fulsome enough.”

“If any officials in the Russian Federation are watching this confirmation hearing, they should know that if I’m confirmed, and if President Trump requests as part of his strategy to end the Ukraine war, that I will be 100% on board for taking sanctions up; especially on the Russian oil majors to levels that would bring Russian Federation to the table.”

President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Office of Management and Budget director, Russell Vought, appears during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to run the Office of Management and Budget appeared on a glide path to confirmation following a Wednesday hearing, despite Democrats raising concerns over his policy beliefs and actions in the exact same job during the first administration.

Russ Vought, who ran a conservative think tank for the last four years, repeatedly declined to detail how he would advise Trump on a variety of policy issues during the two-hour hearing — with one notable exception.

Vought testified he and Trump believe the president holds the sole authority to withhold funding approved by Congress through something called impoundment, which is currently illegal under a 1970s-era law.

“The president has run on the issue of impoundment and has reminded the country that 200 years of presidents have used this authority,” Vought said during the hearing. “And we’ll be developing our approach to this issue and strategy once his administration is in office.”

The issue could become one of the rare occasions where GOP and Democratic lawmakers unite against the executive branch in an attempt to preserve Congress’ power of the purse. The debate would likely end up at the Supreme Court if Trump does freeze funding once in office. 

Michigan Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, ranking member on the committee, asked Vought how Congress would be able to negotiate bipartisan bills “in good faith” if a president could simply choose not to spend money on programs they didn’t like for political or policy reasons.

“If the president can refuse to spend appropriations passed by Congress, wouldn’t he now just basically have the power to simply pick all the winners and losers who receive government funding?” he asked.

First Trump administration

Peters also sharply criticized Vought for his actions during the first Trump administration, when Vought worked as deputy director, acting director and then director of the Office of Management and Budget.

“Unfortunately, your record and actions in these roles raise serious concerns about how you’re going to lead this critical agency that touches literally every single part of the federal government,” Peters said. “Above all, I am concerned by actions you took to demonstrate a total disregard for following the laws that Congress has passed, particularly regarding how to spend taxpayer dollars.”

Peters listed:

• A series of eight reports from the Government Accountability Office that found the Trump administration violated federal laws “by directing certain federal agencies to continue to operate during the 2018-19 shutdown.” The reports addressed actions by the Department of Agriculture’s farm service agency and its early payment of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP benefits, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Interior Department, National Archives and Records Administration, OMB, Smithsonian Institution and Treasury Department.

• A GAO investigation that concluded the Trump administration broke federal law when it withheld security assistance to Ukraine.

• And a report from the inspector general for the Department of Housing and Urban Development that concluded “OMB inappropriately delayed disaster relief funding for Puerto Rico following devastation after Hurricane Maria.”

Vought rejected the conclusions of those reports and said he had never violated the law or the Constitution and that he didn’t intend to if confirmed.

“I will always commit to upholding the law. I disagree with the characterization of the General Accounting Office,” Vought said. “During my time at OMB, we followed the law consistently, and we will continue to do so.”

The Office of Management and Budget, also called the White House budget office, is responsible for submitting the president’s annual budget request to Congress, but it also has sweeping authority over federal regulations and federal agencies. 

Disaster aid, Ukraine assistance

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal later asked Vought if he would commit to releasing all of the roughly $100 billion in disaster aid Congress approved in a December spending package.

The funding was divided up to numerous federal departments, including the Agriculture Department, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Transportation.

“We will continue to release the money that’s appropriately been funded for these areas, as we always have with regard to the FEMA dollars,” Vought said.

When Blumenthal asked if he would make a similar commitment for the unspent military and humanitarian assistance Congress approved for Ukraine, Vought gave a different answer.

“I’m not going to get ahead of the president on a foreign policy issue of the magnitude of the situation with regard to Ukraine,” Vought said.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he was optimistic that Vought would be able to rein in federal spending and regulations and called him “well qualified for the role.”

“Mr. Vought has been a consistent advocate for fiscal sanity and has continually suggested strategies to decrease excess spending,” Paul said. “The director of OMB plays a pivotal role in our economy, especially now — our government is over $36 trillion in debt and the Congressional Budget Office predicts an average of about $2 trillion per year for the next 10 years. No end in sight.

“We need someone with the strength of character, like Mr. Vought, to put the foot down, to put the hammer down and say enough’s enough.”

A person uses a garden hose in an effort to save a neighboring home from catching fire during the Eaton Fire on Jan. 8, 2025, in Altadena, California.  (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that Congress will likely provide billions in disaster aid to help California recover from devastating wildfires, but indicated he might set a new precedent by placing conditions on that emergency funding based on policy and political differences with the Democratic-led state and the city of Los Angeles.

“No one wants to leave any American who is in need hanging, so to speak, right?” said Johnson, a Louisiana Republican. “But at the same time, we recognize that we have a $36 trillion federal debt and we have to balance these needs. It’s about priorities.”

Federal natural disaster aid doesn’t historically come with strings attached since hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and wildfires affect large swaths of the country that are represented by lawmakers from both political parties.

Johnson said he had watched footage of the fires in and around Los Angeles with “heartache” and acknowledged Louisiana has received significant federal disaster aid without conditions, though he said things must change.

“The Americans there that are affected desperately need and deserve help,” Johnson said. “But you’ve also heard us talk about our concerns with the governance of the state of California. And to the extent there is complicity involved in the scope of disaster, then we think that’s something that needs to be carefully regarded.”

Republicans, including President-elect Donald Trump, have levied numerous criticisms at California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass about their management of water resources, fire department budgets and forest management.

Some of what GOP politicians have said isn’t necessarily accurate, according to fact checks from the Los Angeles Times, CalMatters, PBS News and several other organizations.

CalMatters, a nonprofit news organization, has explained why wildfires season has become longer and more problematic. And the Los Angeles Times has repeatedly written about the Santa Ana winds and their impact on Southern California.

New precedent

Johnson adding conditions or restrictions on federal disaster aid would set a new precedent that Democrats could use in the future when providing disaster aid for Republican-run areas of the country.

For example, Democrats could argue that a Republican-run state didn’t spend enough money to curb climate change, which contributes to more frequent and stronger natural disasters.

Democrats could also use Johnson placing restrictions on disaster aid to California as a reason to require GOP-controlled states to implement different building standards for homes or businesses in flood-prone areas or those consistently hit by hurricanes, including Louisiana.

Johnson said during the press conference that Congress would ultimately follow the Trump administration’s lead on a disaster aid package, but laid the groundwork for potentially shifting how lawmakers help state and local governments recover from natural disasters for decades to come.

“We will follow the administration’s lead on this,” Johnson said. “But I will say we have to make sure there are safeguards on the precious treasure of the American people. There are natural disasters, of course. But if they are made much worse by human error and deliberate policy choices that were unwise and were stated as such at the time, then I think that that’s something that needs to be carefully regarded.”

Dem support needed

Unless Republicans bundle a disaster aid bill within their reconciliation package, which seems unlikely, they’ll need Democratic support for the legislation.

That would give Democratic leaders the opportunity to head off Johnson’s efforts to place conditions on disaster aid, or seek other concessions.

While Republicans control both the House and Senate, those are especially small majorities and many GOP lawmakers vote against large-scale spending bills.

The Senate’s legislative filibuster also requires at least 60 of its members vote to advance bills toward final passage, which is more than the 53 Republican senators in that chamber.

Johnson noted during his press conference that the incoming Trump administration will need time to fully assess the damage from the wildfires before it can submit a supplemental spending request to Congress.

Once that happens, he said, the House will review the proposal and begin putting a bill together.

December disaster aid

Congress passed a roughly $100 billion emergency disaster aid bill in December to bolster numerous federal agencies that help Americans recover from natural disasters.

That followed the Biden administration asking lawmakers to approve about the same amount in emergency spending, including $40 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief fund, $24 billion for the Department of Agriculture, $8 billion for the Department of Transportation to repair roads and bridges, and $2 billion for the Small Business Administration for low-interest disaster loans.

That request covered the ongoing federal response to wildfires in Maui; tornados through the Midwest; the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland; and severe storms in Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

It also followed Hurricanes Helene and Milton wreaking havoc in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

Because of that package, Johnson said, FEMA, the Small Business Administration and others have enough aid to begin helping Southern California recover from the fires while also helping those throughout the rest of the country. 

 

Former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum participates in a swearing-in ceremony of state lawmakers on Dec. 2, 2024, in Bismarck, North Dakota, shortly before completing his term as governor. (Photo by Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)

WASHINGTON — Utah Sen. Mike Lee announced Monday he had postponed the confirmation hearing for two days for President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Interior Department.

Lee, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delayed former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum’s hearing, which had been scheduled for Tuesday, until Thursday.

“Governor Doug Burgum has been fully cooperative throughout the confirmation process, promptly submitting his paperwork to the Office of Government Ethics,” Lee wrote in a statement. “Despite his compliance and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee noticing the hearing in accordance with all rules, OGE has yet to complete its review. This bureaucratic delay is unacceptable.”

Lee wrote the extra 48 hours was meant to give the Office of Government Ethics a bit more time to wrap up its work, but cautioned the agency should work quickly. 

“To ensure transparency and uphold the integrity of this process, the committee will postpone Governor Burgum’s hearing until Thursday,” Lee wrote. “However, we expect OGE to act with urgency and complete its review without further unnecessary delays. The American people deserve a government that operates efficiently to advance their priorities, and we remain committed to ensuring these critical confirmations move forward as quickly as possible.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., both raised concerns last week about Burgum’s hearing taking place before certain paperwork was filed with the committee.

“The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and, if it determines, consent to the President’s nominees. This requires careful consideration of each nominee,” Heinrich wrote in a statement released last week. “To achieve this, for decades, nominees that have come before the ENR Committee have submitted responses to a standard questionnaire and a completed financial disclosure form, approval from the Department’s ethics office, and completion of an FBI background check. Until these steps have been completed, I will not consent to notice of nomination hearings.

“Every nominee, every party, every administration should be subject to the same standards. I would urge Chairman Lee to reconsider his decision.”

Heinrich and seven other Democrats on the committee and one independent released a letter Monday morning, urging Lee to delay the hearing until the panel received “the standard financial disclosure report, ethics agreement, or the opinions from the designated agency ethics officer and the Office of Government Ethics stating that the nominee is in compliance with the ethics laws.”

“In view of the fact that the Committee still does not have these documents, which are essential for us to faithfully discharge our constitutional advice-and-consent responsibilities, we respectfully request that you postpone the scheduled hearing on Governor Burgum’s nomination for at least a week to give Members sufficient time to receive and review these materials,” the lawmakers wrote.

Those lawmakers included Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Angus King, a Maine independent, Alex Padilla, D-Calif. and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

The Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, led by Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, later on Monday postponed its Tuesday hearing for Trump’s pick to lead the VA, citing an uncompleted background check.

“Congressman Doug Collins has submitted all his paperwork in a timely manner and has been transparent and forthcoming with the committee,” Moran wrote in a statement. “At this time, the FBI has not completed its customary background check of Congressman Collins. In accordance with long-standing practice, the committee should have an opportunity to review Congressman Collins’ FBI file before the confirmation hearing. I expect the FBI to complete its review quickly so that the committee can move forward with its role of evaluating the President’s nominee.”

Trump announced in November that he had selected the former Georgia congressman to lead the VA. 

Gov. Doug Burgum, at the time the governor of North Dakota and now President-elect Donald Trump's pick for secretary of the Interior, presents his budget recommendations before a joint session of the Legislature on Dec. 4, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)  

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats raised concerns Wednesday that Republicans have scheduled a hearing for one of President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees before he completed the necessary paperwork and an FBI background check.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Martin Heinrich separately criticized the decision, saying it sets a troubling precedent.

“Yesterday, the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources noticed a hearing for Governor Doug Burgum to serve as the next secretary of the Interior, without minority consent, as has long been standard practice,” Schumer said during a floor speech. “Senate Democrats on the committee expressed reasonable objections to proceeding to this hearing, because the committee has not yet received basic information on Governor Burgum’s background.”

Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, released a written statement that he was extremely disappointed Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, chairman of the committee, scheduled the hearing for Burgum, the former governor of North Dakota.

“The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and, if it determines, consent to the President’s nominees. This requires careful consideration of each nominee,” Heinrich wrote. “To achieve this, for decades, nominees that have come before the ENR Committee have submitted responses to a standard questionnaire and a completed financial disclosure form, approval from the Department’s ethics office, and completion of an FBI background check. Until these steps have been completed, I will not consent to notice of nomination hearings.

“Every nominee, every party, every administration should be subject to the same standards. I would urge Chairman Lee to reconsider his decision.”

A committee spokesperson said Heinrich has not yet received confirmation the FBI completed Burgum’s background check.

Heinrich also hasn’t received Burgum’s financial disclosure report, called Form 278e, or paperwork from the Office of Government Ethics saying their personnel have reviewed his financial disclosures and ethics agreements, and they believe he is in compliance with ethics laws, as required by the Ethics in Government Act, according to the spokesperson.

Lee in his own statement wrote that it was “disappointing to see Ranking Member Heinrich seeking to delay issuance of a hearing notice instead of focusing on delivering what voters demanded in November’s election: restoring American energy dominance after years of high energy prices and policy failures.”

“Governor Burgum submitted his paperwork to the Office of Government Ethics last week, and the committee has the same amount of paperwork that Energy and Natural Resources Committee Democrats had in 2009 when they noticed confirmation hearings,” Lee wrote. “I, as chairman, have made every effort to work with our Democratic colleagues, but we won’t give in to delays that undermine the American people’s mandate. It’s time to move forward and focus on solutions that will unleash America’s full energy potential, and I hope Democrats will work with us to deliver results for the American people.”

Burgum hearing anticipated next week

Burgum’s hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at 10 a.m., making it one of the first hearings for any of Trump’s nominees. Trump announced in November that he wanted Burgum, who ended his second term as North Dakota’s governor in December, to lead the Interior Department.

Burgum, 68, graduated from North Dakota State University in 1978 before going on to attend Stanford University Graduate School of Business, where he received a master’s of business administration in 1980.

He worked at Great Plains Software, becoming CEO before Microsoft bought the company in 2001. Burgum then worked as senior vice president for that company until 2007. A year later, he co-founded venture capital firm Arthur Ventures.

Yahoo Finance estimated in 2002 that Burgum’s net worth was approximately $1.1 billion.

Burgum was first elected as governor of North Dakota in 2016 with 76.5% of the vote and then reelected in 2020 with 65.8%.

Other confirmation hearings scheduled for Tuesday include a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing for former U.S. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, whom Trump plans to nominate for VA secretary, and an Armed Services Committee hearing for Pete Hegseth, whom Trump wants to lead the Department of Defense.

The confirmation process is expected to continue Wednesday with hearings for Trump’s pick for Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; his selection for secretary of State, Marco Rubio of Florida, in the Foreign Relations Committee; and the pick for Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, in the Homeland Security committee.

Others are likely to be scheduled in the days and weeks ahead, but the Senate cannot take floor votes on the nominees until after Trump takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

No hearing yet for RFK Jr.

Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Bill Cassidy said during a brief interview earlier this week he didn’t know when he would begin committee hearings with Trump’s nominees for public health agencies, like the National Institutes of Health or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, since they hadn’t yet completed their paperwork and background checks.

The Louisiana Republican said he hoped to begin those hearings before the end of January, but wasn’t sure if that would be possible.

“The only reason I hesitate is because, obviously, we have other hearings and I’m not sure if everything … that we need to receive, we have received. So partly, this is outside my hands,” Cassidy said.

Other committees, he said, were also waiting on paperwork and background checks from some of Trump’s nominees before scheduling hearings.

“I know other committees have had issues that they’ve not yet received everything they need to receive, in which case I don’t control that process,” Cassidy said.

The ongoing outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as bird flu, or H5N1, is one reason Cassidy gave for why he wants to quickly confirm public health nominees.

“Well, H5N1 is serious, absolutely. And, of course, you want to get people in there, you want it to be the right person, on and on and on,” Cassidy said. “So I think we proceed with all due haste.”

Louisiana reported the country’s first human death related to the ongoing bird flu outbreak on Monday, shortly after Cassidy gave his comments about the confirmation process.

Cassidy met on Wednesday with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, in the senator’s Capitol Hill office, a typical part of the nomination process.

Cassidy, a physician who earned his medical degree from Louisiana State University Medical School in 1983, wrote on social media afterward that he had “a frank conversation” with Kennedy.

“We spoke about vaccines at length,” Cassidy wrote. “Looking forward to the hearings in HELP and Finance.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson at a press conference on Jan. 7, 2025. Johnson said he intended to address the country’s debt limit through the budget reconciliation process. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday his “intention” is to address the country’s debt limit through the reconciliation process, pushing aside the possibility of negotiating a bipartisan compromise with Democrats.

The GOP is planning to rely on the complicated budget reconciliation process to pass sweeping changes to immigration and border security as well as tax policy, since it allows lawmakers to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

“The intention is to handle the debt limit in reconciliation, in the process. And that way as the Republican Party, the party in charge of both chambers, we then get to determine the details of that,” Johnson said. “If it runs through regular order … then you have to have both parties negotiating. And we feel like we’re in better stead to do it ourselves.”

President-elect Donald Trump in December called on Republicans to completely eliminate the country’s debt limit, or at least suspend it through the end of his four-year term in office.

House GOP leaders put a two-year debt limit suspension in a short-term spending bill that had to pass in December, but removed it after they were unable to get the votes to approve the altered version of the bill.

Trump said during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago in Florida on Tuesday that his view on the debt limit is predominately that he doesn’t want a default.

“What I want in terms of debt ceiling, isn’t the ceiling, I just don’t want to see a default. That’s all I want,” Trump said. “I never talked about spending more money necessarily. All I want to see is no default because nobody knows what would happen if there was a default — it could be 1929 and it could be nothing.”

The previous debt limit suspension, negotiated between House Republicans and the Biden administration, expired on Jan. 1, but Congress should have several months to negotiate a new debt limit bill before the country would default.

During that window, the Treasury Department will use accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to keep paying all of the nation’s bills in full and on time. Congress failing to approve a debt limit bill before that so-called X-date would lead the country to default, ending deficit spending and likely sending the country, if not the world, into a financial crisis.

Adding the debt limit to reconciliation will force Republicans to wrap up their work on the entire package before the default date hits.

The Treasury Secretary typically provides Congress with regular updates on when default is likely to happen, revising their projections the closer the country gets to the final date. The first of those letters could come before the end of January.

Building GOP consensus on debt limit

Johnson said during the press conference Tuesday that he doesn’t intend to let a default happen under unified Republican control of government, but he did concede that there are several varying beliefs about the debt limit within the GOP.

Republicans have traditionally used debt limit negotiations as leverage during divided government to secure gains in policy areas, like government spending, that they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to push to the forefront. But they don’t tend to do that when they control the House, Senate and White House.

“There is a broad range of opinion on that in our own conference and we are working through that,” Johnson said. “We’ll be having very deliberate, lengthy whiteboard sessions with our members.”

Johnson, R-La., said those negotiations will take up a lot of his time as well as that of the House leadership team during the coming weeks “to make sure that everybody is on the same page on that.”

Johnson also sought to differentiate raising or suspending the debt limit with Republicans’ goal to reduce government spending in the long term, as well as efforts to scale back the size of the federal government.

“I want to emphasize this and I’m going to say this every time the issue comes up — Republicans in this majority, in the House and the Senate, our intention and our mission is to reduce the size and scope of government, to reduce spending in a meaningful way so that we can restore fiscal sanity,” Johnson said. “Raising the debt limit is a necessary step so that we don’t give the appearance that we’re going to default in some way on the nation’s debt. That’s important to the bond markets and the stability of the dollar and all the rest.

“But that does not mean that we have any intention whatsoever, or will tolerate spending up to the new debt limit. The idea is to do exactly the opposite.”

Spending cuts

Johnson said Republicans will look at numerous places to cut government spending, but said he doesn’t anticipate reducing benefits for Social Security or Medicare, which at about $2.2 trillion per year account for roughly one-third of all federal spending.

“We have to look at all spending and look at it very deliberately, while maintaining those commitments,” Johnson said. “The Republican Party is not going to cut benefits, okay? We made that very clear, over and over and over. And that’s the commitment of the White House and this Republican Conference.”

But, he said, the GOP will take an extremely close look at federal departments and agencies in the months ahead to find ways to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse.”

“There will be a very deliberate auditing of all of that in various aspects as we go through the process,” Johnson said. “The DOGE initiative, the project, is going on simultaneously and we’ll be dovetailing all that together.

“So our intention is, by the end of this Congress, to show the American people that we brought the government back down to a measurable state.”

Trump said during his Mar-a-Lago press conference that he’s okay if Republicans pass all of their policy goals through one reconciliation package, but that two bills would also work for him.

“I like one big, beautiful bill and I always have, I always will,” Trump said. “But if two is more certain, it does go a little bit quicker because you can do the immigration stuff early.”

There’s been some debate between House and Senate Republicans about whether to lump everything together in one reconciliation package or to pass one bill addressing border security and immigration first before working on a second package that would address tax policy.

Timeline

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said during the press conference on Capitol Hill that GOP leaders hope to vote on the budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process during February.

The numerous committees that will receive reconciliation instructions once the House and Senate agree to adopt the budget resolution would begin work on their various bills in March, Scalise said.

The entire House would then debate and vote on the full package in April before Easter, sending it to the Senate as long as Republicans can negotiate a deal that holds support from centrist and far-right members of the party.

“It’s an ambitious agenda, but it’s an agenda that all of us signed up for,” Scalise said. 

The House GOP holds an extremely thin majority with just 219 lawmakers, while Democrats hold 215 seats. If all members are present and voting on a given bill, then House GOP leaders need 218 votes to send the measure to the Senate.

There is currently one vacancy since former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz opted not to take his oath of office, but that special election won’t take place until April 1. Other vacancies are likely in the months ahead as at least two other House Republicans are expected to depart for posts in the Trump administration.

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate and can lose the support of three lawmakers on a reconciliation package, but four or more opposing the bill would end the process.

Reconciliation packages also must comply with the Byrd Rule in the Senate, which requires that all provisions in the package have an impact on revenue or spending that is not “merely incidental” as determined by the Senate parliamentarian.

Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report. 

U.S. Senate pages carrying the Electoral College certificates in wooden ballot boxes walk through the Capitol rotunda on their way to the U.S. House chamber on Monday, Jan. 6, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers certified President-elect Donald Trump’s win Monday in a smooth process that four years ago was disrupted by a violent mob of Trump supporters bent on stopping Congress from formally declaring President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

Vice President Kamala Harris — the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee defeated by Trump — presided over the afternoon joint session. Senators and representatives counted and certified the 312 Electoral College votes for Trump that secured his second term in office, this time accompanied by Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio as his vice president.

“Today was obviously a very important day. It was about what should be the norm and what the American people should be able to take for granted, which is that one of the most important pillars of our democracy is that there will be a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris, who won 226 Electoral College votes, told reporters after lawmakers concluded the ceremony.

The process wrapped up in just under 40 minutes with no objections — a stark contrast to four years ago, when Republicans objected to Arizona and Pennsylvania results, and Trump supporters breached the Capitol, sending lawmakers into hiding for several hours.

Former Vice President Mike Pence said Monday in a statement published on X that he welcomed “the return of order and civility to these historic proceedings.”

“The peaceful transfer of power is the hallmark of our democracy and today, members of both parties in the House and Senate along with the vice president certified the election of our new president and vice president without controversy or objection,” wrote Pence, who in 2021 resisted intense pressure from Trump to stop Congress from certifying the results.

On that day, the rioters chanted “Hang Mike Pence” and erected a makeshift gallows on the west side of the Capitol.

Inside the House chamber

Harris entered the chamber just before 1 p.m. Eastern on Monday, with senators following in line behind her.

Lawmakers read aloud the Electoral College vote totals for each state. Harris stood at the dais as results were reported, including the states she and running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz won.

Of the 538 Electoral College votes, at least 270 are needed to win.

Lawmakers on each side of the chamber applauded, and some even stood, when vote totals were announced for their party’s candidate.

Vance, sitting beside GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, applauded during the reading of votes.

Ahead of Monday’s certification, Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Jamie Raskin of Maryland sat together chatting near the back of the chamber for several minutes.

Thompson chaired the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Raskin, who was a member of the committee, has spoken out as recently as last week against Trump’s promise to pardon the defendants charged in the attack.

Pardon advocates gather nearby

Blocks away, at a Capitol Hill hotel, a series of speakers called for full pardons for people convicted of participating in the riot.

The group, a collection of far-right social media figures, framed the 2021 riot as a peaceful protest — even as they openly advocated for the pardons of people who committed violence.

“I believe there should be pardons for every single J6er, including the very most violent ones,” said Cara Castronuova, boxer, advocate and reporter for the pro-Trump news site Gateway Pundit.

Security fencing surrounded the Capitol, where an increased police presence monitored the grounds and inside the building.

The U.S. Secret Service led security planning for the day, which was elevated to a “National Special Security Event,” — the first time a count of the Electoral College votes received the designation.

However, pedestrian and vehicle traffic outside the Capitol remained light after roughly 6 inches of snow fell overnight and into the morning.

Staff crossing paths with U.S. Capitol police officers in the hallways and House basement cafe remarked on the attack four years ago and wished the officers a quiet day.

Fake electors, pressure on Pence

In the 64 days between 2020’s presidential election and Congress’ certification of Biden’s win, Trump and his supporters led a campaign to overturn the results.

Trump and his private attorneys schemed to develop slates of fake electors in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Trump also launched a heavy pressure campaign on Pence to thwart Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory and rallied his supporters to march to the Capitol as he led a “Stop the Steal” rally just hours before lawmakers convened on Jan. 6, 2021.

By day’s end, rioters had assaulted over 140 police officers and caused approximately $2.8 million in damage to the Capitol.

The U.S. Justice Department launched its largest-ever investigation following the attack and, as of December, had charged 1,572 defendants.

Over a third of the defendants were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement, and 171 were charged with using a deadly weapon.

Police were ‘punched, tackled, tased and attacked’

Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement Monday marking the Justice Department’s years-long investigation “to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”

“On this day, four years ago, police officers were brutally assaulted while bravely defending the United States Capitol. They were punched, tackled, tased, and attacked with chemical agents that burned their eyes and skin. Today, I am thinking of the officers who still bear the scars of that day as well as the loved ones of the five officers who lost their lives in the line of duty as a result of what happened to them on January 6, 2021.”

Democratic lawmakers and House Chaplain Margaret Grun Kibben marked the anniversary Monday by holding a moment of prayer on the first floor of the Capitol, where rioters first breached the building four years ago. 

“What was intended to be a historical parliamentary procedure turned quickly into turmoil and frustration and anger and fear,” Kibben said. “We pray now that on this day, four years later, that You would enter into the space in a much different way; in a way that allows for peace and for conversation and for reconciliation.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said afterward that pardoning the people who attacked the Capitol four years ago would “set a terrible example for the future in America and for the world that it was okay, it was forgivable to do this.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the events of Jan. 6, 2021 “will forever live in infamy.”

“A violent mob attacked the Capitol as part of a concerted effort to halt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America for the first time in our history,” Jeffries said. “Thanks to the bravery, courage and sacrifice of heroic police officers and the law enforcement community, the effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election was unsuccessful.”

Republicans saw ‘peaceful grandmothers’

House Speaker Mike Johnson released a statement Monday celebrating the vote certification and Trump’s win as the “​​greatest political comeback in American history.” He did not mention the 2021 attack and his office did not respond to requests for comment about it from States Newsroom.

The Louisianan, whose narrow election as speaker on Friday was boosted by a Trump endorsement, was among the Republicans who refused to certify Arizona’s and Pennsylvania’s slates of electors even after the violent mob stormed the Capitol. 

GOP Rep. Mike Collins of Georgia posted on X on Monday that Jan. 6, 2021, amounted to “thousands of peaceful grandmothers gathered in Washington, D.C., to take a self-guided, albeit unauthorized, tour of the U.S. Capitol building.”

“Earlier that day, President Trump held a rally, where supporters walked to the Capitol to peacefully protest the certification of the 2020 election. During this time, some individuals entered the Capitol, took photos, and explored the building before leaving,” Collins wrote. “Since then, hundreds of peaceful protestors have been hunted down, arrested, held in solitary confinement, and treated unjustly.”

On whether Trump should pardon those defendants charged in the Jan. 6 riot, GOP South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters Monday he believed those who were charged with assaulting law enforcement should be “put in a different category.” But ultimately, Graham said, that decision is up to Trump.

Louisiana’s Cassidy said he couldn’t comment on Trump likely pardoning people convicted of crimes based on their actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

“I mean, it’s a statement without detail, and so it’s hard for me to give thoughts,” Cassidy said, adding he needs to know which people Trump plans to pardon and on what basis. “And so until you see that, it’s hard to have a thought.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, said she suspected it wasn’t easy for Harris to oversee the certification of her defeat, but said she was glad this year included a peaceful transition of power. 

“Well, I thought it was very orderly,” Capito said. “I thought it was very well handled by the vice president as the president of the Senate — it couldn’t have been easy for her. And I think that the peaceful transfer of power is something that makes us all proud to be Americans.”

Changes after the violent attack

Congress is required by law to convene at 1 p.m. Eastern on the sixth day of January following a presidential election year to certify each state’s slate of electors. The vice president, serving in the role of president of the Senate, presides over the process.

Lawmakers amended the law to clarify the vice president’s role after Trump’s actions toward Pence.

Monday’s certification marked the first time lawmakers used the new law, known as the Electoral Count Act.

The bill, signed into law in 2022, updated an 1887 election law that made it unclear what the vice president’s role was in certifying election results.

The new law, spearheaded by Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and former Sen. Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia independent, raises the threshold for objections to a state’s electoral votes and clarifies the vice president’s role as purely ceremonial in certifying electoral results.

Previously, only one U.S. House representative and one U.S. senator needed to make an objection to an elector or slate of electors, but under the new law, one-fifth of the members from each chamber need to lodge an objection.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the outgoing chair of the Senate Rules Committee who helped pass the Electoral Count Act out of committee, said in a statement that “no matter your party, we must uphold the right of all Americans to make their voices heard in our free and fair elections.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden gives a pen to Bette Marafino, president of the Connecticut Chapter of the Alliance for Retired Americans, after he signed the Social Security Fairness Act during an event in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  At left are Sen.  Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.  The legislation will expand Social Security benefits for millions of retired Americans, including firefighters, police officers and teachers. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden has expanded Social Security benefits for more than 2 million Americans by signing broadly bipartisan legislation that Congress approved late last year.

The ceremony on Sunday marked one of the last times Biden is expected to sign major legislation as president, since Congress is now controlled by Republicans and his term is set to end on Jan. 20, when President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office.

“By signing this bill, we’re extending Social Security benefits for millions of teachers … and other public employees, and their spouses and survivors,” Biden said. “That means an estimated average of $360 per month increase. That’s a big deal.”

The nearly 2.5 million people covered under the new law, he said, would “receive a lump sum payment of thousands of dollars to make up for the shortfall in benefits they should have gotten in 2024.”

The House voted 327-75 in November to pass the bill and the Senate voted 76-20 in December to send the bill to Biden.

The new law eliminates the windfall elimination provision and government pension offset that for decades had reduced the amount some Americans receive in Social Security benefits.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who attended the signing ceremony at the White House, released a written statement saying she was “pleased” that “these unfair provisions in our Social Security system have finally been repealed.”

“This is a victory for thousands of teachers, first responders, public servants, and the countless advocates who fought for years to correct this unfairness,” Collins wrote. “For too long, the WEP and GPO have denied retirees and their spouses the Social Security benefits they earned through years of work and contributions to the system. This law ensures that public service will no longer come at the expense of one’s earned retirement benefits.”

Former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat who chose not to seek reelection to Congress to pursue a run for the Virginia governor’s office, wrote on social media that eliminating the two provisions had been a long time coming.

“Our retired police officers, firefighters, teachers, and public employees worked for DECADES to right this wrong,” wrote Spanberger, who co-sponsored the House version of the bill last Congress.

Insolvency date moves up

The expansion of benefits is expected to cost $195.65 billion during the next 10 years and move up the program’s insolvency date by about six months, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

“If H.R. 82 was enacted, the balance of the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) trust fund would, CBO projects, be exhausted roughly half a year earlier than it would be under current law,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote in a letter to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. “The agency estimates that under current law, the balance of the OASI trust fund would be exhausted during fiscal year 2033.”

Other members of Congress attending the signing ceremony included Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, Minnesota Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Carey, Louisiana Democratic Rep. Troy Carter, Louisiana Republican Reps. Clay Higgins and Julia Letlow, Ohio Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Greg Landsman and Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott, according to a list provided by the White House.  

U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., center, and Rep. Marjorie Tayler Greene, R-Ga., left, talk with fellow representatives as they arrive for the first day of the 119th Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building on Jan. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on Friday elected Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson as their speaker for the 119th Congress, following weeks of speculation about whether the GOP would begin another protracted, public dispute over leadership.

The drama-filled vote ensured that Johnson, who was first elected speaker in October 2023, will hold the gavel as Republicans embark on an ambitious legislative agenda that includes overhauling the country’s immigration system and the tax code.

Johnson won the votes of 218 Republicans, while 215 Democrats voted for New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman and Texas Rep. Keith Self all originally voted for other members for speaker. But after several conversations, on and off the floor, Norman and Self switched their votes to Johnson.

The November elections handed the GOP unified control of government, which will formally begin on Jan. 20 when President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office.

“This Congress will renounce the status quo and we will listen to the voices of the people. We will act quickly and we will start by defending our nation’s borders — that’s our number one priority,” Johnson said during a floor speech following the vote. “In coordination with President Trump, this Congress will give our border and immigration enforcement agents the resources they need to do their job.”

Unified Republican control of government, he said, would also deport people in the country without legal status and finish building a border wall.

Johnson said during the next two years, the GOP would take up bills to cut taxes, expand energy production and “reduce the size and scope of government.”

Trump support

Trump endorsed Johnson earlier this week and reiterated his support before the vote Friday in a social media post, writing Johnson is “a fine man of great ability, who is very close to having 100% support.”

“A win for Mike today will be a big win for the Republican Party, and yet another acknowledgment of our 129 year most consequential Presidential Election!! – A BIG AFFIRMATION, INDEED. MAGA!”

Self told reporters that he switched his vote after speaking with Trump and Johnson about GOP priorities, such as reconciliation.

“President Trump has the same emphasis that I do,” Self said. “We have got to make sure this Congress is as strong as possible when we go up against the Senate on (a) reconciliation package, because there’s their debate on what the reconciliation package even looks like.”

Norman told reporters that he switched his vote after Johnson “gave us the assurance that he was going to fight for everything as it moves forward.”

Republicans are planning to use the complicated budget reconciliation process to pass several of their policy goals, but that process has strict rules in order to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the South Dakota Republican who took over as the head of that chamber on Friday, pledged to keep that procedural hurdle in place for non-reconciliation bills.

‘Meaningful spending reforms’

Johnson released three commitments just ahead of the speaker vote, writing on social media that “Republicans have a real opportunity in the next two years to make meaningful spending reforms to eliminate trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse, and end the weaponization of government.”

He pledged to establish “a working group comprised of independent experts – not corrupted by lobbyists and special interests – to work with DOGE and our committees on implementing recommended government and spending reforms to protect the American taxpayer.”

Trump has tasked Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy with starting an outside group, dubbed the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to recommend spending cuts to Congress, though the two could face considerable push back depending on what the recommendations are.

Johnson wrote in his social media post that he would instruct the working group to review “existing audits of federal agencies and entities created by Congress” and release a report on its findings.

Lastly, Johnson wrote he would “request” that “House committees undertake aggressive authorizations and appropriations reviews, including providing additional resources where needed, to expose irresponsible or illegal practices and hold agencies/individuals accountable that have weaponized government against the American people.” 

Contrast with McCarthy battle

Johnson’s election on the first ballot marked a somewhat smoother start to this Congress than the last one, in January 2023, when it took the House GOP 15 rounds of voting over several days before members elected then-Rep. Kevin McCarthy as speaker.

Nine months later, McCarthy was stripped of the role and it took Republicans about a month to coalesce around Johnson, following failed bids from Louisiana’s Steve Scalise, Ohio’s Jim Jordan and Minnesota’s Tom Emmer.

Johnson will need to work closely with Thune to keep the two chambers aligned on policy.

The two have a daunting list of legislative goals they’ll need to unify GOP lawmakers around, amid extremely thin majorities.

Voters elected Republicans to 220 House seats and gave Democrats 215 House representatives, one of the closest majorities in the country’s history.

Johnson will have an even narrower margin of victory since former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz didn’t take the oath of office on Friday after choosing to resign from Congress in late December before an Ethics Committee investigation was released.

Two additional House Republicans are expected to depart sometime in the weeks ahead to take up positions in the Trump administration. Special elections to replace those three lawmakers will take months and won’t necessarily guarantee voters will elect Republicans to represent those districts.

In the Senate, Republicans hold 53 seats, giving Thune a bit more room to negotiate on policy, though not much.

The narrow majorities will require both far-right and centrist Republicans to support sweeping bills that are likely to address complicated policy areas, like immigration and taxes — an extremely challenging task.

Republicans were able to pass a broad tax law in 2017 when they last held unified control of government, but they occupied 241 House seats at the time.

While all 51 Senate Republicans voted for the final version of that bill, a dozen House GOP lawmakers voted against the package and three didn’t vote.

Former state legislators in 119th Congress

Nearly half of the 119th Congress — 247 of the 535 members — were former state or territorial legislators, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Twelve states — Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin — have at least six former state legislators serving in the new Congress.

California, Florida, New York and Texas each have at least 11 prior state legislators in the 119th Congress.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee said 120 of the 260 Democrats were previous state legislators. 

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., is pictured amid fog on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Law enforcement agencies in the nation’s capital were closely monitoring security Thursday following a terrorist attack in New Orleans and a vehicle explosion outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas.

The violent incidents took place just ahead of several high-profile events in Washington, D.C., including the swearing-in of the new Congress on Friday, the certification of the Electoral College vote on Monday, former President Jimmy Carter’s funeral next week and the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump on Jan. 20.

Matthew Young, assistant special agent in charge at the U.S. Secret Service, said in a statement the agency would “adjust our security plans as needed.” 

“While we cannot comment on protective means or methods, what we can say is that we will continue to work with our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners in assessing the ever-changing threat landscape and will adjust our security plans as needed,” Young said. “Our mission is to provide a safe and secure environment for our protectees, and all individuals involved in these events.”

The Secret Service has already designated Congress’ certification of the Electoral College, Carter’s funeral at Washington National Cathedral on Jan. 9 and the inauguration as National Special Security Events, which puts the agency in charge of planning and security logistics.

Those special security events are somewhat common for major political events, like the Republican and Democratic national conventions this summer and for presidential inaugurations.

This is, however, the first year the certification of the Electoral College on Monday will hold that designation after a mob attacked the U.S. Capitol during the last certification.

‘An abundance of caution’

The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., posted on social media that while “there is no known threat to the District of Columbia, out of an abundance of caution, MPD has heightened its security posture across the city in light of recent events.”

“Whenever an incident occurs in the country, MPD closely monitors the situation, evaluates intelligence and assesses our security posture,” MPD wrote in the statement. “As the nation’s capital, we maintain a heightened level of security at all times to ensure the safety of our residents, businesses and visitors.”

The U.S. Capitol Police said in a written statement that they “have already been ramping up security, as planned, ahead of a busy month at the U.S. Capitol.”

USCP had to close off several streets near the building on Thursday after someone drove on a sidewalk a few blocks away.

“Before 10 a.m., our officers spotted a car that had been driving along the sidewalk, near Peace Circle, and into the grassy area near Third Street, NW, & Constitution Avenue,” USCP wrote on social media. “Officers took the man into custody. Please continue to avoid the area while we investigate the car.”

The person was later charged with reckless driving after the USCP bomb squad determined there was no explosive device inside the car.

At least 15 people died and 37 were injured in New Orleans early Wednesday after a man drove a truck onto Bourbon Street in what law enforcement has declared a terrorist attack.

Local and federal law enforcement agencies are also investigating the explosion of a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas on Wednesday. Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, is a close Trump associate.

Officials say they have not found any link between the two attacks, though they are investigating further. 

The debate over the debt limit will likely flare tensions between centrist and far-right Republicans the closer the country gets to the real deadline sometime later in the year. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — When Republicans won unified control of government during the November elections, they also won the responsibility to address the country’s debt limit after the current suspension expires on Jan. 1.

Lawmakers will have a few months of wiggle room thanks to accounting maneuvers to broker a deal before the country would default for the first time in history — which most economists believe would kick-start a global financial crisis.

How long the Treasury Department will be able to use what’s known as extraordinary measures to give Congress more time to find agreement will lead to a high-stakes guessing game on Capitol Hill.

The debate will also likely flare tensions between centrist and far-right Republicans the closer the country gets to the real deadline sometime later in the year.

“That is always a tortured path,” West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said during a brief interview. “A lot of people that are here probably never voted for a debt limit increase, so I think it’s probably going to be a negotiated settlement with some, maybe constraints on spending and other things that would go along with that.”

Capito, who will become the Republican Policy Committee chair next year, said she doesn’t anticipate Congress will simply raise or suspend the debt limit without caveats.

President-elect Donald Trump threw a curve ball into those negotiations in late December when he publicly announced he wanted the party to suspend the debt limit for at least four years or eliminate it entirely before he takes office.

GOP leadership tried to suspend the debt limit for two years as part of a larger spending package, but ultimately withdrew that provision to avoid a government shutdown.

The 48-hour fiasco set the stage for considerable Republican disagreement next year.

“Congress must get rid of, or extend out to, perhaps, 2029, the ridiculous Debt Ceiling,” Trump posted on social media. “Without this, we should never make a deal. Remember, the pressure is on whoever is President.”

What is the debt limit, and why does it matter?

The debt limit allows the Treasury Department to borrow money to pay all the country’s bills in full and on time.

That borrowing authority is necessary because Congress has established a tax code that brings in far less revenue than the federal government spends on hundreds of programs.

During fiscal year 2023, the federal government brought in $4.4 trillion in revenue and spent $6.1 trillion, leading to an annual deficit of $1.7 trillion, according to data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

When the difference between taxes and spending, or the deficit, is added up over decades, it accounts for the country’s $36 trillion-plus debt.

Congress requires itself to regularly give the Treasury Department more borrowing authority to pay for all the spending not covered by revenue. Lawmakers failing to take action to raise or suspend that debt limit would lead to a default.

How to reduce the deficit?

There are several ways for lawmakers to reduce the annual deficit of nearly $2 trillion, though most experts agree it will take a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.

Congress would also need to take a look at the major drivers of government spending — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

At the moment, Republicans are talking about using their unified control of government to pass two major packages on their own.

The first would focus on border security, defense and energy policy. The second package the GOP plans to move through the complex budget reconciliation process is aimed at cutting taxes.

One of the biggest questions GOP leaders will face in the new year is whether to go at it alone, relying solely on their members to raise the debt limit, or to negotiate with Democrats, which would require major concessions.

The debt limit has become something of a political hot potato for GOP lawmakers during the past couple decades, with many in the party viewing it as an inflection point to press for spending cuts. 

That’s not likely to change next year, though Republicans won’t be able to rely on Democratic votes to carry the bill across the finish line like they have in the past, if they choose to move it through the budget reconciliation process.

If, alternatively, the GOP moves a debt limit bill through the regular process, they’ll need the support of Democrats to get past the Senate’s legislative filibuster, which requires at least 60 senators to move bills toward a final passage vote.

Tax increases and spending cuts

Douglas Elmendorf, professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, told the House Budget Committee during a hearing in December that getting the country’s borrowing under control in the long term will require both tax increases and spending cuts.

Elmendorf testified that stabilizing the country’s deficit over the next three decades would “require policy changes totaling a little more than 2% of (gross domestic product), which amounts to about $600 billion per year today.”

“Cutting spending that much would require large cuts to popular and important government programs and raising taxes that much would require large tax increases for many people,” Elmendorf said. “So the only realistic way forward is through a combination of those changes.”

California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock rebuked his own party during the hearing for not approaching reconciliation as a genuine way to reduce the deficit by bringing revenue and spending into alignment.

He argued that Republicans misused budget reconciliation when they had unified control of government during 2017 and 2018, the first two years of Trump’s last presidency.

McClintock said GOP leaders at the time “squandered this authority to chase shiny political objects — repealing Obamacare, then tax reform.”

“And because of the fiscal constraints of reconciliation, Obamacare ended up in this mangled mess that collapsed in the Senate and the tax cuts had to be made temporary,” McClintock said. “And we seem to be poised to repeat the same mistakes that got us here and that would be an immense national tragedy.”

Instead, McClintock said the Budget Committee should focus its attention next year on making the types of tough choices that would begin to reduce the annual deficit and then use the reconciliation process to put those in place.

Drivers of debt

Reconciliation is typically used only when one party controls the House, Senate and White House as a way to implement policy changes without getting the bipartisan support required to get past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

When Republicans hold that power, they typically use it to cut taxes, but don’t always pay for those reductions in revenue, further exacerbating the deficit.

Georgia Republican Rep. Buddy Carter said during the same Budget Committee hearing that Congress must address the largest drivers of government spending, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, if it wants to bring spending closer to revenue. 

“If we don’t address that, we can do away with everything else and still not balance our budget,” Carter said. 

He also cautioned his party against going at it alone, saying “it would be political suicide for one party to try to do it by themselves.” That would mean the GOP needs to negotiate with Democrats, likely eroding some of the party’s goals.

‘Mortgaging our children’s future’

Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said during a brief interview the debt limit is “supposed to concentrate everybody’s minds on the fact that we are mortgaging our children’s future and that we ought to stop the madness.”

Johnson said Republicans could use the reconciliation process they’re planning to use to address defense priorities, border security, energy policy and taxes to cut spending, but he said deficit hawks will be constrained by the rules that govern the special legislative process.

“I’m completely supportive of doing two separate reconciliations — do something pretty simple, primarily focused on the border with real spending cuts. I don’t want to see any gimmicks in this thing. So, you know, I’ll approach it that way,” Johnson said.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said in an interview before Trump’s announcements that GOP lawmakers have begun to discuss how exactly to address the debt limit next year, though he said no agreements have been reached.

“Some people want a separate debate on it and some people want to put it in reconciliation,” Grassley said. “I prefer reconciliation, but I guess whatever we decide to do, we’re going to have to do it.”

Tesla CEO Elon Musk , right, co-chair of the newly announced Department of Government Efficiency, carries his son on his shoulders at the U.S. Capitol following a meeting with businessman Vivek Ramaswamy, left, the other co-chair of the Department of Government Efficiency, Rep. Kat Cammack, center, and other members of Congress on Dec. 5, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Musk and Ramaswamy met with lawmakers about DOGE, a planned presidential advisory commission with the goal of cutting government spending and increasing efficiency in the federal workforce. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump enlisted Washington outsiders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to tell members of Congress how they should run things.

But Musk and Ramaswamy as they build their Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, don’t actually hold any elected or bureaucratic positions in the federal government — giving two hard-driving businessmen far less authority than they’re used to having in the private sector.

The duo will need to garner support from hundreds of members of Congress for any of their suggested spending cuts to become law, even with Republicans in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. That is an uphill slog many have failed at before.

The mix of personalities, differing committee jurisdictions and separation of powers laid out in the Constitution could create tension, to say the least, when powerful Republican lawmakers disagree with or outright ignore Musk and Ramaswamy. Several Republicans indicated in interviews with States Newsroom that they intend to listen to the DOGE duo but will not back down from their roles as elected representatives of the people.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, the incoming chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said during a brief interview she believes the two men can offer lawmakers “valuable insights” and advice, but cautioned the power of the purse rests with Congress.

“It doesn’t mean that we will take all of these issues, but it’s always helpful to have additional oversight,” Collins said. “And so I look forward to seeing what they come up with.”

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, chairman of the Budget Committee, summed up Democrats’ views on the Musk-Ramaswamy entity in a social media post.

“What does Doggie (“DOGE”) do? Maybe think of it this way: you have to watch a couple of precocious toddlers for the day,” Whitehouse wrote. “They need activities, but you don’t want them near stoves, cars, electrical equipment, or anything operational.”

Meet the appropriators

In Congress, the Appropriations Committee is tasked with drafting the dozen annual government funding bills that total about $1.7 trillion. The legislation funds the vast majority of federal departments and agencies, including Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Justice, State and Transportation.

The other two-thirds of federal spending covers interest payments on the debt, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Idaho GOP Rep. Mike Simpson, chairman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, told States Newsroom he expects there will be “conflict” between Congress and the Musk-Ramaswamy group, in part, because they don’t have the years, or even decades, of experience learning the ins and outs of federal spending that appropriators hold.

“I noticed that they’ve said that they want to defund public television. I think they might get some kickback on that,” Simpson said. “To me, that’s a policy decision, not an efficiency issue.”

When GOP lawmakers met with Musk and Ramaswamy behind closed doors in early December to talk about government spending, Simpson said, the two pressed the idea that Trump should be able to cancel spending he deems “waste.”

But what Trump might consider unnecessary could be an essential program to a GOP lawmaker or a rural community, Simpson said.

There’s also a federal law called the Impoundment Control Act that prevents presidents from halting funding that Congress has approved and a Supreme Court ruling that bars the president from using line-item vetoes.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Steve Womack, chairman of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee, told States Newsroom he expects there will need to be some “deconfliction” once Musk and Ramaswamy release their proposals.

“There will be a lot of different, competing interests and ideas, and we’ll just have to see what those are,” Womack said. “It’s a little premature, but, yeah, I’m sure there’ll be some deconfliction, there’ll be some negotiating. Some of this will be leveraged with other significant emotional events up here like debt ceiling, or funding the government.”

Floor votes could also be a hurdle for the various DOGE groups if they don’t gain Democratic support. Republicans will hold just 220 seats in the House at the start of the 119th Congress before a few of their members depart for other opportunities. That razor-thin margin means proposals from Musk and Ramaswamy will need support from the full spectrum of GOP lawmakers to pass.

Then they’ll need to gain the support of nearly all 53 GOP senators if they expect any spending cuts proposals to become law through the complex budget reconciliation process. 

Proving their value

One of the many challenges for Musk and Ramaswamy will be showcasing how their efforts differ from those of the White House budget office.

Bipartisan Policy Center Managing Director for Economic Policy Rachel Snyderman said in an interview with States Newsroom she’ll be watching closely to see whether Musk and Ramaswamy integrate their proposals with the president’s budget request, which the White House will likely release sometime in the spring.

That massive document tells Congress how the president wants lawmakers to change tax and spending policy. Congress, however, rarely follows it to the letter and often ignores large swaths of it.

If Musk and Ramaswamy’s proposals go a completely different route, it could create confusion about what exactly it is the Trump administration wants lawmakers to do and could bog down any support they might get on Capitol Hill.

But simply mirroring what’s already in the budget request would lead to a question about whether or not Musk and Ramaswamy serve any real purpose.

“If you go back and look at the budgets from Trump’s first term … they averaged about $1.6 trillion in cuts over a 10-year budget window,” Snyderman said. “And at least for the first two years, those were presented to a GOP trifecta as well and not implemented as policy.”

Snyderman said Musk and Ramaswamy will likely want to do something other than reinvent the wheel by simply republishing the hundreds of government efficiency and spending cuts proposed over the years by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and inspectors general.

Those groups have given lawmakers and presidents plenty of recommendations to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. But government officials don’t always act on their suggestions.

“There have been so many resources over the years doing just this — proposing smart, sensible, but tough pills to swallow when it comes to government efficiency,” Snyderman said. “What I think it’s going to really boil down to is what’s politically palatable through legislative or executive action. And where as a nation we’re willing to make those trade-offs in service to improve our fiscal outlook and trying to get a handle on the national debt.”

One of the more recent examples, she said, was the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s release of a detailed, 116-page report on ways that lawmakers could reduce the deficit in mid-December.

Impoundment law

If Republicans disagree with Musk and Ramaswamy’s suggestions or only put a few of them in place, it could lead Trump to try to cut spending unilaterally.

Such a decision would create considerable issues for Republicans, since it would violate the Impoundment Control Act and potentially set a new precedent that future Democratic presidents could use to ignore Congress on conservative spending priorities.

That Impoundment Control Act, enacted after then-President Richard Nixon refused to spend billions approved by lawmakers, essentially says a president must distribute money Congress has approved for various federal departments and agencies. It also gives the president a couple of paths to ask lawmakers to cut spending they’ve already approved, but they must agree.

Russ Vought, who has been nominated as director of the Office of Management and Budget, is likely to press the belief that presidents can unilaterally cancel spending, often called “impoundment.”

The Center for Renewing America, the think tank Vought established following his stint as OMB director during the first Trump administration, has repeatedly argued the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and published a detailed history of how presidents canceled spending before the 1974 law took effect.

The Trump administration ignoring the ICA would likely lead to legal challenges and eventually a Supreme Court ruling.

Checks and balances

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, the top Republican on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, told States Newsroom some of the government efficiency proposals that Musk and Ramaswamy pursue will be able to move through executive action, but said any spending cuts must go through Congress.

“This is a country of 320 million people that all have a different point of view about all these different issues, which is why you’ve got to have the kind of process we have, the checks and balances and all that — to figure out where is there enough support to implement these recommendations,” Hoeven said. “That’s how the system works because you’re talking about something that’s very far-reaching and it’s going to affect people throughout the country.”

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the top Republican on the Military Construction-VA spending subcommittee, said he expects there will be a lot of communication between lawmakers, Musk and Ramaswamy about constitutional authority to try to avoid public disagreements, though he didn’t rule that out.

“I think as long as the communication lines are open, we should hopefully end most of that,” he said.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a press conference he expects it will take some time for Musk and Ramaswamy to “scrutinize government operations and figure out where we can achieve savings and efficiencies” before Congress reviews those recommendations and puts them in a bill.

Thune said he would like to see some of those move through the budget reconciliation process that Republicans are planning to use to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster; essentially allowing the GOP to move sweeping policy changes without Democratic input.  

More cooks in Congress

Republicans have talked about cutting government spending for decades, but haven’t used unified control of government to make significant structural reforms in quite some time.

Newly formed groups in the House and Senate will likely provide some support for Musk and Ramaswamy’s proposals, but they may disagree with them as well, or come up with completely separate ideas.

The combination of Musk and Ramaswamy’s DOGE, a soon-to-be-formed House Oversight subcommittee on government efficiency chaired by Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and the government efficiency caucus could become a too-many-cooks scenario.

The Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency Caucus already holds several Republican lawmakers among its ranks, but it doesn’t have the jurisdiction that the Appropriations Committee holds. Neither does the Oversight subcommittee.

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst established the caucus alongside Florida Rep. Aaron Bean and Texas Rep. Pete Sessions

North Carolina’s Ted Budd, Texans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, Oklahoma’s James Lankford, Utah’s Mike Lee, Kansan Roger Marshall, Ohio’s Bernie Moreno, Missouri’s Eric Schmitt, Florida’s Rick Scott and Alaska’s Dan Sullivan have all joined the group on the Senate side.

House members include Rick Allen of Georgia, Jim Baird of Indiana, Andy Barr of Kentucky, Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Ben Cline of Virginia, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, Ron Estes of Kansas, Pat Fallon of Texas, Randy Feenstra of Iowa, Scott Franklin of Florida, Carlos Giménez of Florida, Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, Diana Harshbarger of Tennessee, Doug LaMalfa of California, Nick Langworthy of New York, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Celeste Maloy of Utah, Tom McClintock of California, Cory Mills of Florida, Dan Newhouse of Washington, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Gary Palmer of Alabama, David Rouzer of North Carolina, Mike Rulli of Ohio, Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, Beth Van Duyne of Texas, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, Tim Walberg of Michigan, Randy Weber of Texas, Daniel Webster of Florida, Roger Williams of Texas and Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Social Security legislation passed by the U.S. Senate, which would cost more than $195 billion over 10 years, now goes to President Joe Biden for his signature. (Photo by Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a broadly bipartisan bill early Saturday that would increase Social Security benefits for millions of Americans with pensions by ending two of the program’s policies in place for decades — the windfall elimination provision and government pension offset.

The legislation, which would cost more than $195 billion over 10 years, now goes to President Joe Biden for his signature. While he hasn’t released a public endorsement of the bill, extensive support in the House and Senate could signal he’s likely to support the measure becoming law.

The Senate vote was 76-20 and the House vote in November was 327-75.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said during floor debate Wednesday that a fix for the two provisions has been decades in the making, noting she held the first hearing on the issue in the upper chamber in 2003.

Collins later partnered with the late California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to introduce the first version of the bill in 2005, before working with former Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski in 2007 on another version.

“Social Security is the foundation of retirement income for most Americans, yet many teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants often see their earned Social Security benefits unfairly reduced by two provisions,” Collins said. 

The windfall elimination provision, she said, “affects public servants who receive a pension from a job not covered by Social Security, but who also worked long enough in another job to qualify for Social Security benefits.”

The government pension offset affects people who worked in jobs that weren’t eligible for Social Security, but were eligible for a spousal benefit. That pension offset, Collins said, can reduce a spouse’s Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the non-covered pension, leading to 70% of those affected by the GPO to lose the entire Social Security benefit.

“This issue is extraordinarily important in my state of Maine because the state’s pension system does not include a Social Security component,” Collins said. “And among those most affected are Maine school teachers.”

Collins called the WEP and the GPO “an unfair, inequitable penalty.” 

Hit to trust fund

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said the bill’s title made it sound like “motherhood and apple pie,” but argued it wasn’t the right approach to address the problem.

He expressed concern the bill would reduce the Social Security trust fund by an additional $200 billion during the next decade, moving up the insolvency date by six months.

“This chamber needs courage and needs to say what needs to be said — we are about to pass an unfunded $200 billion spending package for a trust fund that is likely to go insolvent over the next nine to ten years and we’re going to pretend like somebody else has to fix it,” Tillis said. “Well, when you’re a U.S. senator and you have your election certificate, that falls on us.”

Tillis said he agreed with Collins and others who support the bill that the WEP and the GPO must be fixed, but said that should be part of a larger conversation about addressing Social Security’s upcoming insolvency.

“We do not disagree with what we ultimately need to do,” Tillis said. “This is a disagreement in how to get here and how to have something that assesses the downstream risk. So it is with some trepidation that I come to the floor and criticize the good work of Sen. Collins. But I do it because there is so much riding on us getting this right and having the courage to fix Social Security over the next few years.”

Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said during floor debate Wednesday that people who paid into Social Security for the required amount of time should receive their full benefits. 

“Social Security we know is a bedrock of our middle class — it’s retirement security that Americans pay into and earn over a lifetime,” Brown said. “You pay in for 40 quarters, you pay in essentially for 10 years. You’ve earned it. It should be there when you retire.”

Brown said it “makes no sense” that workers in certain public service jobs, like teachers, police officers and firefighters, cannot draw their full benefits. 

“They protect our communities, they teach our kids, they pay into Social Security just like everyone else,” Brown said.

How do these provisions work?

The pension offset reduces a “spousal or widow(er)’s benefits of most people who also receive pensions based on federal, state, or local government employment not covered by Social Security,” according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The windfall elimination provision changes the formula to reduce Social Security benefits for people “who are also entitled to pension benefits based on earnings from jobs that were not covered by Social Security,” the report said.

The pension offset affects about 746,000 Americans while the windfall provision affects 2.1 million.

“The share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the GPO varies widely by state,” the CRS report says. “States with a relatively larger share of GPO-affected beneficiaries are usually those with a larger share of state and local government employees not covered by Social Security or those with more (Civil Service Retirement System) retirees.”

The pension offset has a disproportionate impact on Social Security beneficiaries in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Utah. 

The windfall elimination provision affects a larger percentage of residents in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington, Wyoming. 

“Similar to the GPO, the share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP varies by state,” CRS wrote. “Typically, states that have a larger share of state and local government employees not covered by Social Security or more CSRS retirees have a relatively larger share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP.”

Bipartisan House support

The U.S. House voted 327-75 in November to approve the four-page bill, sponsored by Louisiana Republican Rep. Garret Graves and Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger.

Graves said during floor debate that for 40 years, Social Security worked by “treating people differently, discriminating against a certain set of workers.”

“These are police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants,” Graves said at the time. “I worked side by side with these folks. They are not people who are overpaid. They are not people who are underworked.”

Spanberger called the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset “two misguided provisions that were added to the Social Security Act in 1983 (and) have denied Americans the retirement security they worked for and expected to receive.”

“For more than 40 years, public servants have tirelessly implored their representatives in Congress to listen to their stories and to correct this glaring injustice,” Spanberger said. “Today, for the first time, Congress will vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, to repeal the WEP and the GPO, and to finally put an end to this theft.”

Opposition to bill

Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the two provisions affect around 4% of all Social Security beneficiaries, more than 60% of whom are concentrated in 10 states.

The two provisions, he said, “were put in place more than four decades ago to prevent workers with earnings that were exempt from Social Security payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment from Social Security than workers who spent their whole careers contributing to Social Security.”

“Unfortunately, these policies still result in overly generous benefits for some while unfairly penalizing others,” Smith said, before arguing the bill wasn’t the right way to address the two provisions. 

Smith said that getting rid of the two provisions “without a replacement potentially trades unfair treatment for preferential treatment.”

He also expressed concern about how pulling more money from the Social Security trust fund would impact solvency. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $195.65 billion during the next 10 years and wrote in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that it would likely move up the Social Security insolvency date by six months.

“If H.R. 82 was enacted, the balance of the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) trust fund would, CBO projects, be exhausted roughly half a year earlier than it would be under current law,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote. “The agency estimates that under current law, the balance of the OASI trust fund would be exhausted during fiscal year 2033.”

The Social Security trustees report for 2024 says that the program will be able to pay full benefits until 2035. After that, if Congress hasn’t brokered a solution, Social Security would be able to pay about 83% of benefits. 

U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., speaks to members of the press at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 20, 2024 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Congress finally approved a stopgap spending bill early Saturday that will keep the government open for a few more months, after a raucous 48 hours that served as a preview of what President-elect Donald Trump’s second term in office might look like.

The short-term spending package, the third version of a bill to be released this week, will give lawmakers until mid-March to negotiate agreement on the dozen full-year government funding measures and provide about $100 billion in natural disaster assistance. 

Although it technically was passed by the Senate after the midnight deadline for a shutdown, deputy White House press secretary Emilie Simons said on X that agencies would continue normal operations. 

The House passed the bill Friday evening following a 366-34 vote with one Democrat voting “present.” The Senate voted 85-11 shortly after midnight Saturday. President Joe Biden signed the bill Saturday morning. 

The legislation did not include any language either raising or suspending the debt limit, rejecting a demand by Trump that it be addressed. Congress and Trump will have to deal with that next year when they control the House, Senate and the White House.

The 118-page bill will extend programs in the five-year farm bill through September, giving the House and Senate more time to broker a deal, even though they are already more than a year late.

The package would not block members of Congress from their first cost-of-living salary adjustment since January 2009, boosting lawmakers’ pay next year from $174,000 to a maximum of $180,600.

It does not include a provision considered earlier this week that would have allowed the year-round sale of E15 blended gasoline nationwide in what would have been a win for corn growers and biofuels.

The White House announced during the House vote that Biden supports the legislation.

“While it does not include everything we sought, it includes disaster relief that the President requested for the communities recovering from the storm, eliminates the accelerated pathway to a tax cut for billionaires, and would ensure that the government can continue to operate at full capacity,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote. “President Biden supports moving this legislation forward and ensuring that the vital services the government provides for hardworking Americans – from issuing Social Security checks to processing benefits for veterans — can continue as well as to grant assistance for communities that were impacted by devastating hurricanes.”

Appropriators at odds

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., urged support for the bill during floor debate, saying it would avoid a partial government shutdown, provide disaster aid and send economic assistance to farmers.

“Governing by continuing resolution is never ideal, but Congress has a responsibility to keep the government open and operating for the American people,” Cole said. “The alternative, a government shutdown, would be devastating to our national defense and for our constituents and would be a grave mistake.”

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, spoke against the bill and criticized GOP negotiators from walking away from the original, bipartisan version released Tuesday.

She rejected billionaire Elon Musk, a close Trump ally, seemingly calling the shots as if he were an elected lawmaker, though she ultimately voted for passage. 

“The United States Congress has been thrown into pandemonium,” DeLauro said. “It leads you to the question of who is in charge?”

Trump, Musk objections

Democrats and Republicans reached an agreement earlier this week to fund the government, provide disaster aid, extend the agriculture and nutrition programs in the farm bill, extend various health care programs and complete dozens of other items. But Trump intervened, preventing House GOP leaders from putting that bill on the floor for an up-or-down vote. 

Trump and Musk were unsupportive of some of the extraneous provisions in the original bill and Trump began pressing for lawmakers to address the debt limit now rather than during his second term.

House Republicans tried to pass their first GOP-only stopgap bill on Thursday night, but failed following a 174-235 vote, with 38 GOP lawmakers voting against the bill. That bill included a two-year debt limit suspension, but that was dropped from the version passed Friday. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said Friday before the vote that the GOP was united on its plan forward.

“We have a unified Republican Conference. There is a unanimous agreement in the room that we need to move forward,” Johnson said following a 90-minute closed-door meeting. “I expect that we will be proceeding forward. We will not have a government shutdown. And we will meet our obligations for our farmers, for the disaster victims all over the country, and for marking sure the military and essential services and everyone who relies on the federal government for a paycheck is paid over the holidays.”

A total of 34 House Republicans voted against the bill. No House Democrats voted against passage.

No shutdown, for now

The House and Senate not agreeing on some sort of stopgap spending bill before the Friday midnight deadline would have led to a funding lapse that would likely have led to a partial government shutdown just as the holidays begin.

During a shutdown, essential government functions that cover the protection of life and property continue, though no federal workers would have received their paychecks until after the shutdown ends. That loss of income would have extended to U.S. troops as well.

“If there is going to be a shutdown of government, let it begin now, under the Biden Administration, not after January 20th, under “TRUMP,” the president-elect posted on social media Friday morning. “This is a Biden problem to solve, but if Republicans can help solve it, they will!”

In a separate post that went up just after 1 a.m. Eastern, Trump doubled down on his insistence that any short-term spending bill suspend the debt limit for another four years or eliminate the borrowing ceiling entirely.

“Congress must get rid of, or extend out to, perhaps, 2029, the ridiculous Debt Ceiling,” Trump wrote. “Without this, we should never make a deal. Remember, the pressure is on whoever is President.”