FBI director Kash Patel testifies before a U.S. Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday, May 8, 2025. (Photo from U.S. Senate webcast)
WASHINGTON — The case of the missing Federal Bureau of Investigation budget request was on full display Thursday, when senators repeatedly asked the law enforcement agency’s director what resources he needed Congress to provide in the upcoming fiscal year.
FBI Director Kash Patel did not disclose a dollar amount, an unusual development at a hearing at which an agency head traditionally discusses a budget request in detail with lawmakers who hold the purse strings.
The Senate Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee hearing came one day after Patel testified before a House panel that he needs more money from Congress than was asked for in the Trump administration’s budget request.
Patel’s written statement to the House subcommittee said the FBI’s total request was $10.1 billion, but during that hearing he told appropriators the agency needed at least $11.2 billion.
Patel rejecting the Trump administration’s official budget request in support of his own proposal to Congress was significant in that Cabinet secretaries almost always stick to the official request, at least during public hearings.
“The skinny budget is a proposal, and I’m working through the appropriations process to explain why we need more than what has been proposed,” Patel said during the House hearing Wednesday.
Never mind
Less than 24 hours later, he reversed course during the Senate hearing, saying his comments were misconstrued.
“President Trump has set new priorities and a focus on federal law enforcement. I’m here today in full support of the president’s budget, which reprioritizes and enhances our mission of law enforcement and national security,” Patel said in his opening statement. “We’re fighting for a fully funded FBI because we want a fully effective FBI.”
What that dollar amount might be was unclear, though.
During an exchange with Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the full Appropriations Committee, about what exactly the FBI needs in terms of funding, Patel said: “I’m not asking you for anything at this time.”
Murray responded by asking if he believed the FBI could “operate without a budget.” Patel responded that he “never said that.”
Republicans and Democrats on the Senate panel repeatedly brought up that the Trump administration’s “skinny” budget proposal, released last week, doesn’t actually include a total funding level for the FBI. It only has one paragraph calling for lawmakers to cut funding by $545 million.
Patel testified during the two-hour Senate hearing that he had identified most of the accounts that could lose funding, though he wasn’t prepared to share that information with the committee or give a timeline when he would.
Patel also declined to tell lawmakers when the FBI would send Congress its spending plan for the current fiscal year, which is required by law and past due.
“I don’t have a timeline on that,” Patel said.
Kansas senator pleads with Patel for details
Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, the subcommittee’s chairman, said he was holding the hearing to get the ball rolling on the upcoming appropriations process and encouraged Patel to get the committee more details.
“We wanted to get every piece of information we could as early as we could, even though the budgetary process and now the appropriations process is disjointed and things are lacking,” Moran said.
Moran said that he was “concerned by the scale of the cut, especially as I know full well it comes on the heels of two years where the FBI’s budget was essentially held flat, forcing it to absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in unavoidable inflationary increases.”
Patel declined to say if he would testify before the committee again after the Trump administration releases its full budget request, which should include considerably more detail and is expected to come out sometime later this year, though the White House hasn’t said when.
The House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that fund the FBI will write the bill over the summer and will likely negotiate final bipartisan, bicameral bills this fall.
That bill is one of a dozen that provide funding for many of the departments and agencies that make up the federal government, including Agriculture, Energy, Defense, Health and Human Services. Homeland Security, Interior, State, and many more.
Cam Hamilton, at the time senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA, testifies before a House Appropriations subcommittee on May 7, 2025. (Screenshot from House webcast)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has ousted the leader of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and replaced him with another official, States Newsroom has confirmed.
Cam Hamilton, senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA, was let go just one day after he testified before Congress about the size and scope of the federal agency.
President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have both indicated they could support getting rid of FEMA and Trump has established a FEMA reform council to assess the agency’s role.
But during his testimony Wednesday before the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, Hamilton said he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”
“Having said that, I’m not in a position to make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a determination such as consequential as that should be made,” Hamilton said. “That is a conversation that should be had between the president of the United States and this governing body on identifying the exact ways and methodologies, in which, what is prudent for federal investment, and what is not.”
Hamilton, a former Navy Seal and combat medic, said earlier in the hearing that he had served in five different administrations, but that the “highest honor of my career is serving right now in the Trump administration. Keeping the American people first.”
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed to States Newsroom on Thursday that Hamilton was no longer in the lead role at FEMA, but opted not to detail why exactly the personnel change happened.
“Mr. David Richardson will be the senior official performing the duties of the Administrator,” the DHS spokesperson wrote in an email.
A FEMA spokesperson confirmed the firing as well, writing that “(e)ffective today, David Richardson is now serving as the Senior Official Performing the duties of the FEMA Administrator. Cameron Hamilton is no longer serving in this capacity.”
Richardson was appointed the assistant secretary of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office at the Department of Homeland Security in January, according to his biography.
House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., released a statement saying the “Trump administration must explain why he has been removed from this position.
“Integrity and morality should not cost you your job, and if it does, it says more about your employer than it does you.”
Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement that firing “FEMA’s chief just three weeks before hurricane season begins shows how little President Trump cares about Floridians’ and Americans’ safety.
“The added cruelty of his timing — a day after acting Administrator Hamilton publicly opposed dismantling the agency during a Congressional budget hearing — sends a chilling message from Trump that every American is on their own and that Trump Administration officials cannot be trusted to offer their candid, expert opinion to Congress or anyone, without consequences.”
Anna Schlobohm de Cruder stands in the remains of her home, which was destroyed in the Eaton Fire on March 20, 2025 in Altadena, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. House lawmakers on Wednesday began debating when the Federal Emergency Management Agency should provide state and local communities with help addressing natural disasters and when aid should be handled by others.
The Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee’s hearing on FEMA’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year came just days after the Trump administration sent its spending proposal to Capitol Hill.
That “skinny” request, however, didn’t include an actual spending level for FEMA, only suggesting that Congress cut $646 million for various non-disaster grant programs, including Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention, and the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium.
Chairman Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, urged the FEMA official at the hearing to get the full budget request to the committee sooner rather than later.
“If we don’t have the information, it’s going to be a problem,” he said. “And I’m not threatening. You don’t need threatening. We don’t work that way.”
Amodei also told Cam Hamilton, senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA, that the agency needs to communicate with lawmakers better, especially those on the panel that provides its funding.
“I’m not trying to horn in on your guys’ discretion of running your program,” Amodei said. “But what I am definitely trying to horn in on is, not being faced with a situation where the bell’s already been rung. Now I’ve got to un-ring the bell.”
Amodei was referencing FEMA halting funding for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, grants, including for three projects within a few miles of his front porch that he didn’t know existed until recently.
Hamilton said that Trump administration officials “found a lot of inefficiencies with the design of the program itself, which caused us to have serious concern over whether it was the appropriate use of taxpayer funds for many projects that were funded that we believe were very wasteful.”
“But there are also projects that were fully funded that we intend to move forward to completion,” Hamilton added. “We’re unpacking and analyzing that. Every grant recipient, under BRIC, should receive some form of notification” soon from FEMA regional offices.
No budget numbers
The 90-minute hearing, which would typically have centered around the numbers in FEMA’s budget request, was instead a bit of a referendum on the size and scope of the agency, as well as expectations the Trump administration will seek to significantly reduce its mission.
Hamilton, asked point-blank if FEMA should continue to exist, testified that he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”
“Having said that, I’m not in a position to make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a determination, such as consequential as that should be made,” he said. “That is a conversation that should be had between the president of the United States and this governing body on identifying the exact ways and methodologies, in which, what is prudent for federal investment, and what is not.”
Illinois Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood, ranking member on the panel, said she would not support efforts to completely shift FEMA responsibilities onto state and local governments.
State emergency management leaders, she said, “are not equipped to handle the roles FEMA currently plays—- marshaling emergency resources for multiple federal agencies, providing flood insurance, conducting damage assessments and distributing billions of dollars in recovery funds.”
“Pushing disaster response and recovery fully back to the states is dangerous and unrealistic,” Underwood said.
Hamilton said the Trump administration is looking at ways to institute “top-down reform” and “overhaul the grant process entirely” as well as other possible recommendations from the FEMA review council.
“FEMA was established to provide focused support in truly catastrophic disasters,” Hamilton said. “Yet at times, we have strayed far from that core mission and evolved into an over-extended federal bureaucracy; attempting to manage every type of emergency, no matter how minor.
“Instead of being a last resort, FEMA is all too often used by states and public officials as a financial backstop for routine issues that, frankly, should be handled locally. This misalignment has fostered a culture of dependency, waste, inefficiency, while also delaying crucial aid to Americans who are in genuine need.”
Disaster relief deficit
One of the more immediate budgetary issues facing FEMA is that its disaster relief fund is slated to run at least a $9 billion deficit before the end of the year, which several lawmakers raised concerns about during the hearing.
The Trump administration, however, does not plan to send Congress a supplemental spending request, asking lawmakers for more money for that account.
The disaster relief fund is able to run deficits, unlike the vast majority of federal programs. When the DRF runs out of funding, FEMA uses something called immediate needs funding to keep providing response and recovery to communities with declared disasters.
Hamilton said, even with the expected use of immediate needs funding again this year, FEMA was prepared to respond to hurricane season and ongoing wildfires.
“There are always challenges that we have to work through,” Hamilton said. “So we are focusing on ways to make us operationally more capable, and also finding ways to be more fiscally practical with our means, so that we don’t buttress us up against those kinds of thresholds nearly as quickly as before.”
U.S. House Republicans are debating cutbacks to Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities. (Photo by Thomas Barwick/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that potential major cuts and changes to Medicaid under consideration by Republicans could mean states would have to spend more of their own money on the program, reduce payments to health care providers, limit optional benefits and reduce enrollment.
The end result, under some scenarios, could be millions of Americans would be kicked off Medicaid and possibly left without health insurance, said the nonpartisan agency relied on by Congress for budget estimates.
The letter from CBO stemmed from a request by Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J.
Both oppose GOP attempts to slash federal funding for the health care program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities. Republicans, who have not settled on an approach, say they are interested in ending waste, fraud and abuse in the program.
CBO Director Phillip Swagel wrote that possible Medicaid changes would likely lead to several outcomes in the states. The impact on states would occur because the federal government covers at least 50% of the cost of the program, with that share increasing in states with lower per capita incomes and those that expanded eligibility under the Affordable Care Act.
Wyden wrote in a statement the CBO letter showed “the Republican plan for health care means benefit cuts and terminated health insurance for millions of Americans who count on Medicaid.”
Pallone wrote in a statement of his own that reducing federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars would lead to “millions of people losing their health care.”
“(President Donald) Trump has repeatedly claimed Republicans are not cutting health care, but CBO’s independent analysis confirms the proposals under consideration will result in catastrophic benefit cuts and people losing their health care,” Pallone wrote. “It’s time for Republicans to stop lying to the American people about what they’re plotting behind closed doors in order to give giant tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations.”
Federal Fallout
As federal funding and systems dwindle, states are left to decide how and whether to make up the difference. Read the latest.
The Medicaid changes would come as Republicans use the complex budget reconciliation process to move a sweeping legislative package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is tasked with cutting at least $880 billion from the programs it oversees — including Medicaid — during the next decade, has yet to release its bill that if approved by the committee will become part of that package.
The panel, led by Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie, is expected to debut its proposed changes next week before debating the legislation during a yet-to-be-scheduled markup.
Republicans plan to use the reconciliation package to permanently extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.
Five scenarios
CBO’s analysis looked at five specific Medicaid scenarios including:
Congress reducing the federal match rate for the 40 states that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
Lawmakers eliminating a 6% threshold that exists for states that collect higher taxes from health care providers and then return that additional money in the form of higher Medicaid payments. CBO writes those “higher Medicaid payments increase the contributions from the federal government to states’ Medicaid programs.”
Republicans creating a per-enrollee cap on federal spending.
Congress establishing a cap on federal spending for Medicaid enrollees who became eligible for the program after their state expanded eligibility under the ACA.
Lawmakers repealing two Biden-era rules that addressed the Medicare Savings Programs and standardized how states approached enrollment and renewals.
The analysis said states could raise taxes or cut spending on other programs to replace the lost federal revenue that would coincide with the first four scenarios, though CBO “expects that such steps would prove challenging for many states.”
“In CBO’s view, different states would make different choices regarding how much of the reduced Medicaid funds to replace,” the analysis states. “Instead of modeling separate responses for each state, the agency estimated state responses in the aggregate, accounting for a range of possible outcomes.”
Overall, CBO expects state governments would be able to replace about half of the lost federal revenue and that they would “reduce provider payment rates, reduce the scope or amount of optional services, and reduce Medicaid enrollment” to address the other half.
Alternatives studied
The first scenario, where lawmakers reduce the federal matching rate for expanded Medicaid populations, would save the government $710 billion during the next decade.
But in 2034, CBO expects that “2.4 million of the 5.5 million people who would no longer be enrolled in Medicaid under this option would be without health insurance.”
CBO wrote that in the second, third and fourth scenarios, “Medicaid enrollment would decrease and the number of people without health insurance would increase.”
The second scenario of limiting state taxes on health care providers would save the federal government $668 billion during the 10-year budget window. It would lead to 8.6 million people losing access to Medicaid with a 3.9 million increase in the uninsured population by 2034.
The third projection that looked at a federal cap on spending per enrollee would reduce federal spending by $682 billion during the next decade. A total of 5.8 million people would lose Medicaid coverage and 2.9 million would become uninsured under that proposal.
And the fourth scenario, where Congress caps federal spending per enrollee in the expansion population, would cut the deficit by $225 billion during the next 10 years. More than 3 million people would lose Medicaid coverage and 1.5 million would become uninsured under this scenario.
Under the fifth scenario, where GOP lawmakers would change two Biden-era rules, CBO expects that the federal government would spend $162 billion less over the 2025–2034 window.
“CBO estimates that, in 2034, 2.3 million people would no longer be enrolled in Medicaid under this option,” the letter states. “Roughly 60 percent of the people who would lose Medicaid coverage would be dual-benefit enrollees who would retain their Medicare coverage.”
Frank Bisignano, Social Security commissioner nominee, at his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on March 25, 2025. (Senate webcast)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Frank Bisignano as Social Security commissioner, putting him in charge of a $1.5 trillion entitlement program that’s relied on by tens of millions of Americans.
The 53-47 party-line vote drops a considerable amount of responsibility onto Bisignano, who will not only be tasked with fixing the Social Security Administration’s customer services issues, but ensuring plans to cut its staff by at least 7,000 workers doesn’t hinder the safety net program that helps to keep seniors out of poverty.
Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said during a floor speech just before the vote that Bisignano should have been disqualified from consideration after he “lied multiple times” during the confirmation process.
Wyden also argued that Bisignano would institute substantial changes at the Social Security Administration, which could negatively affect people who rely on the program.
“Every single member of this body that votes to confirm this nominee is going to own the consequences,” Wyden said. “Mr. Bisignano is unfit to be the steward of Americans’ hard-earned Social Security benefits.”
Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said during a floor speech last week that he was “confident” Bisignano held the “experience needed to lead this important agency.”
“The Social Security Administration needs steady, Senate-confirmed leadership,” Crapo said. “Mr. Bisignano would bring his decades-long focus on customer service and operational excellence to the Social Security Administration.”
Wait times, error rate
Bisignano said during his nearly three-hour confirmation hearing in March that he would make sure beneficiaries could visit an office, use the website, or speak to a real person after calling the 1-800 number.
“On the phone, I’m committed to reducing wait times and providing beneficiaries with a better experience; waiting 20 minutes-plus to get an answer will be of yesteryear,” Bisignano said at the time. “I also believe we can significantly improve the length of the disability claim process.”
Bisignano told lawmakers during the hearing he would reduce the 1% error rate in payments, which he said was “five decimal places too high.”
Whistleblower allegations
The Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines in April to send Bisignano’s nomination to the floor, though Chairman Crapo said at the time the panel would look into a whistleblower’s allegations.
“Even though the timing of the anonymous letter suggests a political effort to delay the committee vote on this nominee, my staff have told Sen. Wyden’s staff — and we have discussed this just now — we are open to meeting with the author of the letter and keeping the individual anonymous,” Crapo said. “However, any information provided by the individual must be thoroughly vetted, including allowing the nominee the opportunity to respond.”
Wyden, ranking member on the panel, urged Republicans to delay that committee vote until after the investigation concluded.
“This nominee lied multiple times to every member of this committee, including the bipartisan Finance staff and the nominee’s actions and communications with DOGE remain very much at the heart of my objection here,” Wyden said. “My office received an account from a whistleblower about the ways the nominee was deeply involved in and aware of DOGE’s activities at the agency.”
Crapo said during his floor speech last week that the whistleblower “allegations focused on the frequency and details of communications between the nominee and Social Security Administration officials.”
“Mr. Bisignano addressed these allegations during the hearing and responded in writing as part of the questions for the record,” Crapo added. “He has stated clearly that he does not currently have a role at the Social Security Administration and was not part of the decision-making process led by the Acting Commissioner, Lee Dudek, about Social Security operations, personnel, or management.”
Bisignano, of New Jersey, most recently worked as chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Fiserv, Inc., which “enables money movement for thousands of financial institutions and millions of people and businesses,” according to its website. The company is based in Wisconsin.
He previously worked as co-chief operating officer and chief executive officer of Mortgage Banking at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies during his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Less than half of Americans have confidence in federal public health agencies’ ability to regulate prescriptions, approve vaccines and respond to outbreaks, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.
The survey shows that just 46% of the people questioned have at least some confidence in federal agencies ensuring the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs.
Even fewer, 45%, have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and only 42% said they have confidence federal health agencies to respond to infectious disease outbreaks, like bird flu and measles.
An especially low percentage of those polled, 32%, had either some confidence or a lot of confidence in federal health agencies acting independently without interference from outside interests.
“There are remarkably low levels of trust in the nation’s scientific agencies, shaped by partisan perspectives, and that presents a real danger for the country if and when another pandemic hits,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman wrote in a statement accompanying the poll.
Confidence in agencies sags or rises by party affiliation
The percentage of people overall who hold confidence in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide reliable information about vaccines has dropped since a similar survey in September 2023, though party affiliation shows differing trends.
Democrats with a fair amount or great deal of trust in the FDA’s vaccine information has decreased from 86% to 67%, while trust among Republicans has increased from 42% to 52%.
When combined with independents, overall trust in the FDA’s information about vaccines has decreased, from 61% to 57%.
Confidence in the CDC providing reliable information about vaccines has also shifted based on party affiliation.
During the Biden administration, 88% of Democrats had a fair amount or great deal of trust in the CDC, though that has since dropped to 70%. Republicans have started to come back around to the CDC’s vaccine information, with their level of trust increasing from 40% to 51%.
Altogether, trust in CDC has dropped from 63% to 59%, according to the survey.
“The overall level of trust in each case is similar to where it stood in September 2023, though the poll reveals significant partisan shifts as the second Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have started to change vaccine policies and messaging,” the poll states.
Local sources trusted
Health care providers and local public health departments are overwhelmingly looked to as trusted sources for reliable information on vaccines, according to the survey.
Eighty-two percent of respondents said they either have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in doctors and health care providers to give them reliable information about vaccines.
Eighty-one percent said they trust their child’s pediatrician, 66% responded they have confidence in their local public health department, 59% believe in the CDC, 57% trust the FDA and 51% have confidence in pharmaceutical companies to provide factual information about vaccines.
Those polled held less trust in politicians, with 41% believing Kennedy’s comments about vaccines and 37% trusting President Donald Trump “to provide reliable information about vaccines,” according to the poll.
A majority of those surveyed, however, are somewhat or very confident in the safety of several vaccines, including 83% for measles, mumps and rubella, or the MMR vaccine; 82% for pneumonia; 79% for shingles; 74% for the flu; and 56% for COVID-19.
The poll included 1,380 U.S. adults contacted online or via telephone from April 8-15, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Idaho, Kansas and Missouri want a federal judge to let them intervene in a case that’s already been to the U.S. Supreme Court, so they can argue the FDA erred when it updated prescribing guidelines for abortion medication, shown in photo, in 2016. (Photo by Peter Dazeley/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice wrote in a legal filing released Monday that three GOP-led states attempting to overturn federal prescribing guidelines for medication abortion have sought to keep a case going in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The filing is significant since it appears to indicate the Trump administration will defend the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision nine years ago to broaden access to mifepristone. The Biden administration also sought to keep the newer prescribing guidelines intact.
Idaho, Kansas and Missouri want a federal judge to let them intervene in a case that’s already been to the U.S. Supreme Court, so they can argue the FDA erred when it updated prescribing guidelines for mifepristone in 2016.
The goal is to get those changes thrown out so use of mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, reverts to what was in place between 2000 and 2016.
That would cap medication abortion at seven weeks gestation instead of the current 10 weeks and patients seeking medication abortions would need to attend three, in-person doctor appointments. Medication abortion would no longer be available via telehealth and it could no longer be legally mailed to patients.
Subscribe to Reproductive Rights Today
Want a better understanding of abortion policy in the states? Sign up for our free national newsletter. Reproductive Rights Today is a comprehensive daily wrap-up of changes to reproductive rights in the states, the front lines in the fight over abortion access in a Post-Roe America.
The Trump administration wrote in a 15-page brief filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas that the three states “cannot keep alive a lawsuit in which the original plaintiffs were held to lack standing, those plaintiffs have now voluntarily dismissed their claims, and the States’ own claims have no connection to this District.”
“The States are free to pursue their claims in a District where venue is proper … but the States’ claims before this Court must be dismissed or transferred pursuant to the venue statute’s mandatory command,” the brief adds.
The Department of Justice also wrote that at “a minimum, the States’ challenge to FDA’s 2016 actions is time-barred because the States sought to intervene more than six years after FDA finalized those actions.”
Original suit began in 2022
The original case challenging the federal government’s 2000 approval and current prescribing guidelines for medication abortion began in November 2022 when anti-abortion groups filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas.
That case worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in June 2024 that the anti-abortion organizations lacked standing to bring the case.
But Idaho, Kansas and Missouri state officials sought to intervene in the case before it reached the high court and have tried to keep the challenge to the 2016 prescribing guidelines moving forward.
The Department of Justice wrote in its brief that there were several reasons the case shouldn’t continue in the Northern District of Texas.
Among those is that the three states “fail to identify any actual or imminent controversy over whether any of their laws are preempted” and that they lack Article III standing since “they failed to exhaust their claims; and their challenge to FDA’s 2016 actions is outside the six-year statute of limitations.”
From left to right, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump released a budget request Friday that would dramatically slash some federal spending, the initial step in a monthslong process that will include heated debate on Capitol Hill as both political parties work toward a final government funding agreement.
The proposal, for the first time, details how exactly this administration wants lawmakers to restructure spending across the federal government — steep cuts to domestic appropriations, including the elimination of dozens of programs that carry a long history of bipartisan support, and a significant increase in defense funding.
Trump wants more than 60 programs to be scrapped, some with long histories of assistance to states, including Community Services Block Grants, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities within the National Institutes of Health, and the Sexual Risk Avoidance and Teen Pregnancy Prevention programs.
Congress will ultimately decide how much funding to provide to federal programs, and while Republicans hold majorities in both chambers, regular funding bills will need Democratic support to move through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.
White House budget director Russ Vought wrote in a letter that the request proposes shifting some funding from the federal government to states and local communities.
“Just as the Federal Government has intruded on matters best left to American families, it has intruded on matters best left to the levels of government closest to the people, who understand and respect the needs and desires of their communities far better than the Federal Government ever could,” Vought wrote.
The budget request calls on Congress to cut non-defense accounts by $163 billion to $557 billion, while keeping defense funding flat at $893 billion in the dozen annual appropriations bills.
The proposal assumes the GOP Congress passes the separate reconciliation package that is currently being written in the House, bringing defense funding up to $1.01 trillion, a 13.4% increase, and reducing domestic spending to $601 billion, a 16.6% decrease.
Many domestic cuts
Under Trump’s request many federal departments and agencies would be slated for significant spending reductions, though defense, border security and veterans would be exempt.
The cuts include:
Agriculture: – $5 billion, or 18.3%
Commerce: – $1.7 billion, or 16.5%
Education: – $12 billion, or 15.3%
Energy: – $4.7 billion, or 9.4%
Health and Human Services: – $33 billion, or 26.2%
Housing and Urban Development: – $33.6 billion, or 43.6%
Interior: – $5.1 billion, or 30.5%
Justice: – $2.7 billion, or 7.6%
Labor: – $4.6 billion, or 34.9%
State: – $49.1 billion, or 83.7%
Treasury: – $2.7 billion, or 19%
Increases include:
Defense: + $113 billion, or 13.4% with reconciliation package
Homeland Security: + $42.3 billion, or 64.9% with reconciliation package
Transportation: + $1.5 billion, or 5.8%
Veterans Affairs: + $5.4 billion, or 4.1%
The budget request also asks Congress to eliminate AmeriCorps, which operates as the Corporation for National and Community Service; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service; the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences; and the 400 Years of African American History Commission.
What if Congress won’t act on the cuts?
Debate over the budget proposal will take place throughout the summer months, but will come to a head in September, when Congress must pass some sort of funding bill to avoid a partial government shutdown.
A senior White House official, speaking on background on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request, suggested that Trump would take unilateral action to cut funding if Congress doesn’t go along with the request.
“Obviously, we have never taken impoundment off the table, because the president and myself believe that 200 years of the president and executive branch had that ability,” the official said. “But we’re working with Congress to see what they will pass. And I believe that they have an interest in passing cuts.”
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act bars the president from canceling funding approved by Congress without consulting lawmakers via a rescissions request, which the officials said the administration plans to release “soon.”
The annual appropriations process is separate from the reconciliation process that Republicans are using to pass their massive tax cuts, border security, defense funding and spending cuts package.
Huge boost for Homeland Security
The budget proposal aligns with the Trump’s administration’s plans for mass deportations of people without permanent legal status, and would provide the Department of Homeland Security with $42.3 billion, or a 64.9% increase.
The budget proposal suggests eliminating $650 million from a program that reimburses non-governmental organizations and local governments that help with resettling and aiding newly arrived migrants released from DHS custody, known as the Shelters and Services Program.
The Trump administration also seeks to eliminate the agency that handles the care and resettlement of unaccompanied minors within Health and Human Services. The budget proposal recommends getting rid of the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Programs’ $1.97 billion budget. The budget proposal argues that because of an executive order to suspend refugee resettlement services, there is no need for the programs.
A federal judge from Washington state issued a nationwide injunction, and ruled the Trump administration must continue refugee resettlement services.
The budget proposal also calls for axing programs that help newly arrived migrant children or students for whom English is not a first language.
For the Education Department, the budget proposal suggests eliminating $890 million in funding for the English Language Acquisition and $428 million for the Migrant Education and Special Programs for Migrant Students.
Key GOP senator rejects defense request
Members of Congress had mixed reactions to the budget request, with some GOP lawmakers praising its spending cuts, while others took issue with the defense budget.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., outright rejected the defense funding level, writing in a statement that relying on the reconciliation package to get military spending above $1 trillion was unacceptable.
“OMB is not requesting a trillion-dollar budget. It is requesting a budget of $892.6 billion, which is a cut in real terms. This budget would decrease President Trump’s military options and his negotiating leverage,” Wicker wrote. “We face an Axis of Aggressors led by the Chinese Communist Party, who have already started a trade war rather than negotiate in good faith. We need a real Peace Through Strength agenda to ensure Xi Jinping does not launch a military war against us in Asia, beyond his existing military support to the Russians, the Iranians, Hamas, and the Houthis.”
The senior White House official who spoke on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request said that splitting the defense increase between the regular Pentagon spending bill and the reconciliation package was a more “durable” proposal.
Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, wrote the panel will have “an aggressive hearing schedule to learn more about the President’s proposal and assess funding needs for the coming year.”
“This request has come to Congress late, and key details still remain outstanding,” Collins wrote. “Based on my initial review, however, I have serious objections to the proposed freeze in our defense funding given the security challenges we face and to the proposed funding cuts to – and in some cases elimination of – programs like LIHEAP, TRIO, and those that support biomedical research.
“Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”
Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement she will work with others in Congress to block the domestic funding cuts from taking effect.
“Trump wants to rip away funding to safeguard Americans’ health, protect our environment, and to help rural communities and our farmers thrive. This president wants to turn our country’s back on Tribes—and let trash pile up at our national parks,” Murray wrote. “Trump is even proposing to cut investments to prevent violent crime, go after drug traffickers, and tackle the opioids and mental health crises.”
A press release from Murray’s office noted the budget request lacked details on certain programs, including Head Start.
House Speaker Mike Johnson R-La, praised the budget proposal in a statement and pledged that House GOP lawmakers are “ready to work alongside President Trump to implement a responsible budget that puts America first.”
“President Trump’s plan ensures every federal taxpayer dollar spent is used to serve the American people, not a bloated bureaucracy or partisan pet projects,” Johnson wrote.
Spending decisions coming
The House and Senate Appropriations committees are set to begin hearings with Cabinet secretaries and agency heads next week, where Trump administration officials will explain their individual funding requests and answer lawmakers’ questions.
The members on those committees will ultimately write the dozen annual appropriations bills in the months ahead, determining funding levels and policy for numerous programs, including those at the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State and Transportation.
The House panel’s bills will skew more toward Republican funding levels and priorities, though the Senate committee has a long history of writing broadly bipartisan bills.
The leaders of the two committees — House Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., House ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Senate Chairwoman Collins and Senate ranking member Murray — will ultimately work out a final deal later in the year alongside congressional leaders.
Differences over the full-year bills are supposed to be solved before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, but members of Congress regularly rely on a stopgap spending bill through mid-December to give themselves more time to complete negotiations.
Failure to pass some sort of government funding measure, either a stopgap bill or all 12 full-year spending bills, before the funding deadline, would lead to a partial government shutdown.
This round of appropriations bills will be the first debated during Trump’s second-term presidency and will likely bring about considerable disagreement over the unilateral actions the administration has already taken to freeze or cancel federal spending, many of which are the subject of lawsuits arguing the president doesn’t have that impoundment authority.
A poll released Thursday, May 1 showed 76% of Americans oppose cuts to Medicaid. (Photo via Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans, including most Republicans, oppose major cuts in federal funding for Medicaid, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.
The survey shows that 76% of those questioned wouldn’t support Congress slashing the amount of spending dedicated to the state-federal health program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities.
Democrats held the highest rate of opposition at 95%. A small majority of Republicans surveyed, 55%, said they don’t support substantial federal spending cuts for the program.
The breakdown was nearly even among respondents who identified as Make America Great Again supporters — President Donald Trump’s base — with 51% of that group saying they support less federal funding for Medicaid and 49% saying they oppose major cuts to the federal allocation.
The survey comes just days before House Republicans are expected to release a bill that will likely propose cutting hundreds of billions in federal funding for Medicaid.
That legislation, as well as bills from several other committees, is supposed to help Republicans offset some of the $4.5 trillion deficit impact that comes with extending the 2017 tax law.
The KFF poll also showed strong opposition to slashing federal funding to other health care programs — 74% were against cuts to states for mental health and addiction prevention services, 71% didn’t support reducing federal spending to track infectious disease outbreaks, 69% opposed limiting federal dollars for research at universities and medical centers, 65% were against cuts to HIV prevention program allocations and 65% didn’t support reducing federal funding to help people buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Polling of 1,380 U.S. adults took place from April 8 to April 15 via telephone and online. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Senate GOP watching House action
Senate Republicans are closely watching how their House colleagues restructure federal funding for Medicaid, and will likely propose changes when the entire 11-bill package comes over from the House later this year.
Several GOP senators told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday they will judge the package based on how changes to Medicaid will impact their constituents.
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he’s unlikely to support any changes to Medicaid that “will result in cutting benefits or denying eligibility for people who are otherwise working.”
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 20, 2024. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“I’m all for work requirements,” he said. “I don’t think you get any Republican objection to that.”
But Hawley said going beyond that might be pressing the issue too far to get his vote.
“I just met with the governor of my state this morning. He’s in town. We just sat down and we talked about this issue,” Hawley said, adding that Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, was “very worried about” potential changes to federal Medicaid funding.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins said she’s planning to evaluate the House bill once it makes it through that chamber based on “the impact on low-income seniors who are dual eligible, families with children with disabilities, low-income families, our rural hospitals, healthcare providers.”
Dual eligibility refers to people who are on Medicare and Medicaid.
“I am open to carefully crafted work requirements for able-bodied adults who do not have preschool children,” Collins said. “But I have no idea what the package is going to contain at this point.”
Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran said he’s told his chamber’s Republican leadership that “Medicaid is an important issue” for him in determining whether he votes for the entire package once it’s on the floor.
“I’m going to look at overall how it impacts citizens, particularly people with disabilities, and how it impacts my state and the hospitals that provide services to people in Kansas,” Moran said.
North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said “the challenge is going to be to find savings in line with what the president has described.”
“He said he doesn’t want any cuts to Medicaid,” Hoeven said. “But how do you make sure that you eliminate waste, fraud and abuse? And that the folks that should be getting it are getting it, rather than an able-bodied person who should be out there working and is able to do that and take care of themselves.”
A poll released Thursday, May 1 showed 76% of Americans oppose cuts to Medicaid. (Photo via Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans, including most Republicans, oppose major cuts in federal funding for Medicaid, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.
The survey shows that 76% of those questioned wouldn’t support Congress slashing the amount of spending dedicated to the state-federal health program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities.
Democrats held the highest rate of opposition at 95%. A small majority of Republicans surveyed, 55%, said they don’t support substantial federal spending cuts for the program.
The breakdown was nearly even among respondents who identified as Make America Great Again supporters — President Donald Trump’s base — with 51% of that group saying they support less federal funding for Medicaid and 49% saying they oppose major cuts to the federal allocation.
The survey comes just days before House Republicans are expected to release a bill that will likely propose cutting hundreds of billions in federal funding for Medicaid.
That legislation, as well as bills from several other committees, is supposed to help Republicans offset some of the $4.5 trillion deficit impact that comes with extending the 2017 tax law.
The KFF poll also showed strong opposition to slashing federal funding to other health care programs — 74% were against cuts to states for mental health and addiction prevention services, 71% didn’t support reducing federal spending to track infectious disease outbreaks, 69% opposed limiting federal dollars for research at universities and medical centers, 65% were against cuts to HIV prevention program allocations and 65% didn’t support reducing federal funding to help people buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Polling of 1,380 U.S. adults took place from April 8 to April 15 via telephone and online. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Senate GOP watching House action
Senate Republicans are closely watching how their House colleagues restructure federal funding for Medicaid, and will likely propose changes when the entire 11-bill package comes over from the House later this year.
Several GOP senators told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday they will judge the package based on how changes to Medicaid will impact their constituents.
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he’s unlikely to support any changes to Medicaid that “will result in cutting benefits or denying eligibility for people who are otherwise working.”
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 20, 2024. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
“I’m all for work requirements,” he said. “I don’t think you get any Republican objection to that.”
But Hawley said going beyond that might be pressing the issue too far to get his vote.
“I just met with the governor of my state this morning. He’s in town. We just sat down and we talked about this issue,” Hawley said, adding that Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, was “very worried about” potential changes to federal Medicaid funding.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins said she’s planning to evaluate the House bill once it makes it through that chamber based on “the impact on low-income seniors who are dual eligible, families with children with disabilities, low-income families, our rural hospitals, healthcare providers.”
Dual eligibility refers to people who are on Medicare and Medicaid.
“I am open to carefully crafted work requirements for able-bodied adults who do not have preschool children,” Collins said. “But I have no idea what the package is going to contain at this point.”
Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran said he’s told his chamber’s Republican leadership that “Medicaid is an important issue” for him in determining whether he votes for the entire package once it’s on the floor.
“I’m going to look at overall how it impacts citizens, particularly people with disabilities, and how it impacts my state and the hospitals that provide services to people in Kansas,” Moran said.
North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said “the challenge is going to be to find savings in line with what the president has described.”
“He said he doesn’t want any cuts to Medicaid,” Hoeven said. “But how do you make sure that you eliminate waste, fraud and abuse? And that the folks that should be getting it are getting it, rather than an able-bodied person who should be out there working and is able to do that and take care of themselves.”
Demonstrators holds signs as a motorist passes with flags supporting President Donald Trump during an April 5, 2025, protest in Columbia, South Carolina. Protestors organized nationwide demonstrations against Trump administration policies and Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Tuesday marked the 100th day of President Donald Trump’s second term, a period filled almost daily with executive orders seeking to expand presidential power, court challenges to block those orders and economic anxiety that undermines his promised prosperity.
Trump has taken decisive actions that have polarized the electorate. He’s used obscure authorities to increase deportations, upended longstanding trade policy with record-high tariffs, made drastic cuts to the federal workforce and ordered the closure of the Education Department.
Those moves have garnered mixed results and led to legal challenges.
The approach to immigration enforcement has yielded lower numbers of unauthorized border crossings compared to last year. But the immigration crackdown has barreled the country toward a constitutional crisis through various clashes with the judiciary branch.
Those nearing retirement have watched their savings shrink as Trump’s blunt application of tariffs, which he promises will replace income taxes, roils markets. Administration officials have promised the short-term tariff pain will benefit the country in the long term.
And White House advisor and top campaign donor Elon Musk’s efforts at government efficiency have resulted in eliminations of wide swaths of government jobs. That includes about half of the Education Department workforce so far, though Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate the department.
The controversial moves appear unpopular, as Americans delivered record low approval ratings for a president so early in his term. Polls spearheaded by Fox News, NPR, Gallup and numerous others yield overall disapproval of Trump’s job performance.
Trump speaks to reporters after signing executive orders in the Oval Office on April 23, 2025. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon look on. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Deportation push tests legal boundaries
Immigration was Trump’s signature issue on the campaign trail and his first 100 days were marked by a crackdown carried out against people with a range of immigration statuses and at least three U.S. citizen children. The aggressive push has led to clashes with the judiciary branch.
A burst of Inauguration Day executive orders Trump signed upon his return to office included some hardline immigration policies he’d promised.
On day one, he declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border that enabled his deployment two days later of 1,500 troops to help border enforcement.
District courts blocked the birthright citizenship and refugee resettlement measures and an appeals court has upheld those interpretations. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in May on birthright citizenship.
Trump’s record on immigration is a clear example of his desire to expand executive power, said Ahilan Arulanantham, a co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.
“It’s an attempt to expand the government’s powers far beyond anything that we have seen before in this realm,” he said.
Unprecedented authorities
The administration has taken a series of actions considered nearly unprecedented to conduct mass deportations.
Authorities never accused Khalil of committing a crime, but sought to revoke his green card under a Cold War-era provision that allows the secretary of State to remove lawful permanent residents if the secretary deems their presence has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
Similar arrests followed at universities across the country.
In mid-March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport two planeloads of people his administration said belonged to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
It was only the fourth time the law was invoked and the first outside of wartime. The first flights left U.S. soil en route to a mega-prison in El Salvador on Saturday, March 15, amid a hearing on the legality of using the law in peacetime.
Prison officers stand guard over a cell block at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025 in El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)
When a federal judge entered an oral order to turn the flights around, the administration refused, arguing the oral order was not valid. The administration also ignored a subsequent written order demanding the return of the flights, later arguing the flights were outside U.S. airspace at that time and impossible to order returned.
Administration officials mocked the court order on social media.
The Supreme Court on April 7 allowed for the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. However, the justices unanimously agreed that those removed under the wartime law needed to have due process and have a hearing to challenge their removal.
Abrego Garcia
A third March 15 flight carried a man who was mistakenly deported in an episode that has gained a national spotlight.
Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, had a final order of removal, but was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge because of the threat he would be harmed by gangs if he were returned to his home country. Despite the protective order, he was deported to the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT prison.
After his family sued over his deportation, the administration admitted he’d been removed through an “administrative error,” but stood by its decision.
The administration argued it had no power to compel the El Salvador government to release Abrego Garcia, despite a possibly illegal $6 million agreement with the country to detain the roughly 300 men.
A Maryland federal court and an appeals court ruled the administration must repatriate Abrego Garcia, whose wife and 5-year-old son are U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his return, but stopped short of requiring it.
The administration has done little to indicate it is complying with that order, earning a rebuke from a conservative judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The Supreme Court’s decision does not … allow the government to do essentially nothing,” Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote. “‘Facilitate’ is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”
The administration’s relationship with the courts — delaying compliance with orders and showing a clear distaste for doing so — has led to the brink of a constitutional crisis, Arulanantham said.
“They’re playing footsy with disregarding court orders,” he said. “On the one hand, they’re not just complying. If they were complying, Abrego Garcia would be here now.”
But the administration has also not flagrantly refused to comply, Arulanantham added. “They’re sort of testing the bounds.”
Tariffs prompted market drop
Trump’s first 100 days spiraled into economic uncertainty as he ramped up tariffs on allies and trading partners. In early April, the president declared foreign trade a national emergency and shocked economies around the world with costly import taxes.
Following a week of market upheaval, Trump paused for 90 days what he had billed as “reciprocal” tariffs and left a universal 10% levy on nearly all countries, except China, which received a bruising 125%.
Some products, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and copper, remain exempt for now, though the administration is eyeing the possibilities of tariffs on those goods.
A billboard in Miramar, Florida, displays an anti-tariff message on March 28, 2025. The Canadian government has placed the anti-tariff billboards in numerous American cities in what they have described as an “educational campaign” to inform Americans of the economic impacts of tariffs. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The administration now contends it will strike trade deals with some 90 foreign governments over the pause, set to expire in July.
Meanwhile, an all-out trade war rages with China after Trump hiked tariffs on the world’s no. 2 economy even further to 145%. China responded with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. The two economies share a massive trading relationship, both in the top three for each other’s imports and exports.
‘Chaotic’ strategy
Inu Manak, fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, summed up Trump’s first 100 days as “chaotic.”
“We haven’t seen anything like this in our U.S. history in terms of how trade policy is being handled. It’s very ad hoc,” Manak said.
“U.S. businesses can’t figure out what to do. And even for the large companies, it’s hard for them to know some of the long-term trajectories of where this was going to go,” Manak said.
Shortly after his second term began, Trump declared a national emergency over illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. — an unprecedented move to trigger import taxes — and began escalating tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as up to 25% on certain products crossing the borders from Canada and Mexico.
Trump hiked existing tariffs on steel and aluminum in mid-March under trade provisions meant to protect domestic production and national security, followed by 25% levies on foreign cars and auto parts — though Trump signed two executive orders Tuesday to grant some tariff relief to carmakers.
The import taxes have alarmed investors, small businesses and American consumers following the 2024 presidential campaign when Trump made lowering prices a major tenet of his platform.
The latest University of Michigan survey of consumers — a staple indicator for economists — reported consumer outlook on personal finances and business conditions took a nosedive in April. Expectations dropped 32% since January, the largest three-month percentage decline since the 1990 recession, according to the analysis.
Manak said Trump’s tariffs are “really at odds with” with the administration’s objectives of helping U.S. manufacturers and cutting costs for Americans.
“The U.S. now has the highest tariff rates in the world,” she said. “That’s going to hurt both consuming industries that import products to make things, and then consumers as well. We’re starting to see notifications coming out on layoffs, and some small businesses considering closing up shop already. And the tariffs haven’t been in place for that long.”
Rhett Buttle, of Small Business for America’s Future, said the policies are “causing real damage in terms of not just planning, but in terms of day-to-day operations.”
Buttle, a senior advisor for the advocacy group that claims 85,000 small business members, said even if Trump begins to strike deals with other countries, entrepreneurs will likely be on edge for months to come.
“It’s that uncertainty that makes business owners not want to hire or not want to grow,” Buttle said. “So it’s like, ‘Okay, we got through this mess, but why would I hire a person if I don’t know if I’m gonna wake up in two weeks and there’s gonna be another announcement?’”
Support dropping
Trillions were erased from the U.S. stock market after “Liberation Day” — the White House’s term for the start of its global tariff policy. The S&P 500 index, which tracks the performance of the 500 largest U.S. companies, is overall down 8.5% since Trump’s inauguration, according to The Wall Street Journal’s analysis.
Numerous recent polls showed flagging support for Trump’s economic policies.
In a poll released Monday, Gallup found 89% of Americans believe tariffs will result in increasing prices. And a majority of Americans are concerned about an economic recession and increasing costs of groceries and other goods, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey between April 17 and April 22.
The Pew Research Center similarly found a growing gloomy outlook among U.S. adults from April 7 to April 13. Results showed a majority of Americans — 59% across race, age and income levels — disapproved of Trump’s approach to tariffs. But when broken down by party, the survey showed a majority of Democrats disapprove while the majority of Republicans approve of the tariff policy.
American households are poised to lose up to $2,600 annually if tariffs remain in place and U.S. fiscal policy doesn’t change, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Analyses show low-income households will be disproportionately affected.
“If these tariffs stay in place, some folks are going to benefit, but a lot of people are going to get hurt,” Manak said.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Government spending
Elon Musk, accompanied by his son X Musk and Trump, speaks during an executive order signing in the Oval Office on February 11, 2025. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Trump began his second term with a flurry of action on government spending, challenging the balance of power between the president and Congress.
Efforts to unilaterally cancel funding already approved by lawmakers, who hold the authority to spend federal dollars under the Constitution, led to confusion and frustration from both Democrats and Republicans, especially after the U.S. DOGE Service froze allocations on programs that have long elicited bipartisan support.
Many of the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back appropriations are subject to injunctions from federal courts, blocking the cuts from moving forward while the lawsuits advance through the judicial system.
Kevin Kosar, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Trump’s actions on spending so far have sought to expand the bounds of presidential authority.
“We’ve never seen a president in modern times who’s been this aggressive in trying to seize control of the power of the purse,” he said. “To just say, ‘I’m not going to fund this agency, like USAID, despite money being appropriated for it. And we’re going to walk over and take their plaque off their wall and lock their doors.’ This is new.”
Many of Trump’s actions so far indicate to Kosar that the administration expects a change to the balance of power following next year’s midterm elections, when the president’s party historically loses control of at least one chamber of Congress.
“It feels to me that the first 100 days are in large part predicated on an assumption that they may only have two years of unified Republican control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency,” he said. “We know the margins in the House are quite narrow, and the heavy use of executive actions and the simple defunding of various government contracts and agencies all through executive action, just tell me that the administration feels like they have to get everything done as fast as they possibly can, because the time is short.”
Kosar said he’s watching to see if Trump works with Republicans in Congress, while they still have unified control, to codify his executive orders into law — something he didn’t do with many of the unilateral actions he took during his first term.
“He just did executive actions, which, of course, (President Joe) Biden just undid,” he said. “And I’m just wondering: Are we going to see this movie all over again? Or is he going to actually partner with Congress on these various policy matters and pass statutes so that they stick?”
Zachary Peskowitz, associate professor of political science at Emory University, said Trump has been much more “assertive” during the last 100 days than during the first few months of 2017.
DOGE ‘winding down’
U.S. DOGE Service and Musk hit the ground running, though their actions have fallen short of the goals he set, and appear to be sunsetting with the billionaire turning his attention back toward his businesses.
“I think the big bang is winding down. They did a lot of things early on. It’s not clear how many of them are going to stick, what the consequences are,” Peskowitz said. “And I think, big picture, in terms of federal spending, the amounts of money that may have been saved or not are pretty small.”
Democrats in Congress released a tracker Tuesday listing which accounts the Trump administration has frozen or canceled to the tune of more than $430 billion.
But Trump has just gotten started.
The administration plans to submit its first budget request to Congress in the coming days, a step that’s typically taken in early February, though it happens a couple months behind schedule during a president’s first year.
That massive tax-and-spending proposal will begin the classic tug-of-war between Congress, which will draft the dozen annual appropriations bills, and Trump, who has shown a willingness to act unilaterally when he doesn’t get his way.
Trump and lawmakers must agree to some sort of government funding bill before the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, otherwise a partial government shutdown would begin. And unlike the reconciliation package that Republicans can enact all on their own, funding bills require some Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold.
Trump stands with McMahon after signing an executive order to reduce the size and scope of the Education Department during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Eliminating the Education Department
Researchers and advocates predicted even more changes to the federal role in education, underscoring anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and a continued ideological battle with higher education that have marked Trump’s approach to education policy in his first 100 days.
In a torrent of education-related decisions, Trump and his administration have tried to dismantle the Education Department via an executive order, slashed more than 1,300 employees at the department, threatened to revoke funds for schools that use DEI practices and cracked down on “woke” higher education.
The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to revoke federal funding for a number of elite universities in an attempt to make the institutions align more with them ideologically.
Rachel Perera, a governance studies fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, cited “brazen lawlessness” when reflecting on Trump’s approach to higher education in his second term.
“The ways that they’re trying to withhold funding from universities are very clearly in violation of federal law and the processes mandated by civil rights law in terms of ensuring that institutions are offered due process in assessing whether violations have taken place,” Perera said. “There’s not even a pretense of pretending to investigate some of these institutions before taking really dramatic action.”
Whether the administration’s approach continues or not depends on court action, she added.
“I think what the next three years might look like is really going to depend on how some of these lawsuits play out,” Perera said, referencing some of the major legal battles involving the Trump administration.
Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said “much of what this administration has done has been overreach.” He pointed to the Education Department’s letter threatening to yank federal funds for schools that use race-conscious practices across aspects of student life as one example.
Del Pilar, who was previously deputy secretary of postsecondary and higher education for the state of Pennsylvania, said the administration is “going to take any opportunity to grab at power that advances their ideology.”
Meanwhile, Perera said the consequences of the department implementing a reduction in force plan in March “have yet to be felt.”
“I think we will start to see really the material consequences of the reduced staffing capacity in the coming years, in terms of how programs are administered, in terms of how funding is moving out the building, in terms of auditing, making sure funding is going to the right groups of students that Congress intended for the money to go to, whether big data collection efforts that are congressionally mandated are being carried out in timely and effective ways,” she said.
The U.S. Capitol on March 14, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Three U.S. House committees on Tuesday approved the first few bills that will make up Republicans’ massive reconciliation package after rejecting numerous Democratic amendments.
The Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Education and Workforce committees each voted mostly along party lines to send their measures to the Budget Committee, which is expected to bundle them together with the other eight bills later this month.
The additional House committee markups are scheduled to take place Wednesday and next week. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., hopes to put the entire package on the floor for a vote before the Memorial Day recess begins.
Nearly every one of the chamber’s 220 GOP lawmakers will need to vote to approve the 11-bill package in order to send it to the Senate, where Republicans will likely make changes to the legislation.
The first three markups included some of the less controversial aspects of the package for Republicans, including plans to increase spending on defense by $150 billion, a $70 billion boost to border security funding and an overhaul of federal student loans and Pell grants.
Homeland Security Chairman Mark E. Green, R-Tenn., wrote in a statement that GOP lawmakers on the panel “advanced funding to give Border Patrol agents the tools they have long requested to accomplish their homeland security mission in the field while protecting our communities.”
“Conversely, the actions of our colleagues across the aisle today proved what the American people have known for some time,” Green wrote. “Democrats would rather advocate for a radical, open-borders agenda than for the safety of their own constituents, or the CBP personnel who suffered through a historic border crisis under the Biden-Harris administration.”
The panel voted 18-14 along party lines to approve the bill.
Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., wrote in a statement after his panel approved its bill that the measures “not only would save taxpayers over $350 billion but also bring much-needed reform in three key areas: simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers.”
“I’m proud of the Committee’s work today to finally stand up and end the status quo of endless borrowing,” Walberg wrote.
That panel voted 21-14 along party lines to approve its bill.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., wrote the defense funding increase would ensure “that our national defense remains the strongest in the world and supports an agile and modern fighting force.”
That committee voted 35-21 to advance its bill, with five Democrats — Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Eugene Vindman of Virginia and George Whitesides of California — voting with all committee Republicans in favor.
House committees are expected to release bills next week showing how Republicans plan to extend the 2017 GOP tax law as well as how they plan to cut federal funding on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, program.
Demonstrators holds signs as a motorist passes with flags supporting President Donald Trump during an April 5, 2025, protest in Columbia, South Carolina. Protestors organized nationwide demonstrations against Trump administration policies and Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Tuesday marked the 100th day of President Donald Trump’s second term, a period filled almost daily with executive orders seeking to expand presidential power, court challenges to block those orders and economic anxiety that undermines his promised prosperity.
Trump has taken decisive actions that have polarized the electorate. He’s used obscure authorities to increase deportations, upended longstanding trade policy with record-high tariffs, made drastic cuts to the federal workforce and ordered the closure of the Education Department.
Those moves have garnered mixed results and led to legal challenges.
The approach to immigration enforcement has yielded lower numbers of unauthorized border crossings compared to last year. But the immigration crackdown has barreled the country toward a constitutional crisis through various clashes with the judiciary branch.
Those nearing retirement have watched their savings shrink as Trump’s blunt application of tariffs, which he promises will replace income taxes, roils markets. Administration officials have promised the short-term tariff pain will benefit the country in the long term.
And White House advisor and top campaign donor Elon Musk’s efforts at government efficiency have resulted in eliminations of wide swaths of government jobs. That includes about half of the Education Department workforce so far, though Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate the department.
The controversial moves appear unpopular, as Americans delivered record low approval ratings for a president so early in his term. Polls spearheaded by Fox News, NPR, Gallup and numerous others yield overall disapproval of Trump’s job performance.
Trump speaks to reporters after signing executive orders in the Oval Office on April 23, 2025. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon look on. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Deportation push tests legal boundaries
Immigration was Trump’s signature issue on the campaign trail and his first 100 days were marked by a crackdown carried out against people with a range of immigration statuses and at least three U.S. citizen children. The aggressive push has led to clashes with the judiciary branch.
A burst of Inauguration Day executive orders Trump signed upon his return to office included some hardline immigration policies he’d promised.
On day one, he declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border that enabled his deployment two days later of 1,500 troops to help border enforcement.
District courts blocked the birthright citizenship and refugee resettlement measures and an appeals court has upheld those interpretations. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in May on birthright citizenship.
Trump’s record on immigration is a clear example of his desire to expand executive power, said Ahilan Arulanantham, a co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.
“It’s an attempt to expand the government’s powers far beyond anything that we have seen before in this realm,” he said.
Unprecedented authorities
The administration has taken a series of actions considered nearly unprecedented to conduct mass deportations.
Authorities never accused Khalil of committing a crime, but sought to revoke his green card under a Cold War-era provision that allows the secretary of State to remove lawful permanent residents if the secretary deems their presence has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
Similar arrests followed at universities across the country.
In mid-March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport two planeloads of people his administration said belonged to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
It was only the fourth time the law was invoked and the first outside of wartime. The first flights left U.S. soil en route to a mega-prison in El Salvador on Saturday, March 15, amid a hearing on the legality of using the law in peacetime.
Prison officers stand guard over a cell block at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025 in El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)
When a federal judge entered an oral order to turn the flights around, the administration refused, arguing the oral order was not valid. The administration also ignored a subsequent written order demanding the return of the flights, later arguing the flights were outside U.S. airspace at that time and impossible to order returned.
Administration officials mocked the court order on social media.
The Supreme Court on April 7 allowed for the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. However, the justices unanimously agreed that those removed under the wartime law needed to have due process and have a hearing to challenge their removal.
Abrego Garcia
A third March 15 flight carried a man who was mistakenly deported in an episode that has gained a national spotlight.
Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, had a final order of removal, but was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge because of the threat he would be harmed by gangs if he were returned to his home country. Despite the protective order, he was deported to the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT prison.
After his family sued over his deportation, the administration admitted he’d been removed through an “administrative error,” but stood by its decision.
The administration argued it had no power to compel the El Salvador government to release Abrego Garcia, despite a possibly illegal $6 million agreement with the country to detain the roughly 300 men.
A Maryland federal court and an appeals court ruled the administration must repatriate Abrego Garcia, whose wife and 5-year-old son are U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his return, but stopped short of requiring it.
The administration has done little to indicate it is complying with that order, earning a rebuke from a conservative judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The Supreme Court’s decision does not … allow the government to do essentially nothing,” Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote. “‘Facilitate’ is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”
The administration’s relationship with the courts — delaying compliance with orders and showing a clear distaste for doing so — has led to the brink of a constitutional crisis, Arulanantham said.
“They’re playing footsy with disregarding court orders,” he said. “On the one hand, they’re not just complying. If they were complying, Abrego Garcia would be here now.”
But the administration has also not flagrantly refused to comply, Arulanantham added. “They’re sort of testing the bounds.”
Tariffs prompted market drop
Trump’s first 100 days spiraled into economic uncertainty as he ramped up tariffs on allies and trading partners. In early April, the president declared foreign trade a national emergency and shocked economies around the world with costly import taxes.
Following a week of market upheaval, Trump paused for 90 days what he had billed as “reciprocal” tariffs and left a universal 10% levy on nearly all countries, except China, which received a bruising 125%.
Some products, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and copper, remain exempt for now, though the administration is eyeing the possibilities of tariffs on those goods.
A billboard in Miramar, Florida, displays an anti-tariff message on March 28, 2025. The Canadian government has placed the anti-tariff billboards in numerous American cities in what they have described as an “educational campaign” to inform Americans of the economic impacts of tariffs. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The administration now contends it will strike trade deals with some 90 foreign governments over the pause, set to expire in July.
Meanwhile, an all-out trade war rages with China after Trump hiked tariffs on the world’s no. 2 economy even further to 145%. China responded with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. The two economies share a massive trading relationship, both in the top three for each other’s imports and exports.
‘Chaotic’ strategy
Inu Manak, fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, summed up Trump’s first 100 days as “chaotic.”
“We haven’t seen anything like this in our U.S. history in terms of how trade policy is being handled. It’s very ad hoc,” Manak said.
“U.S. businesses can’t figure out what to do. And even for the large companies, it’s hard for them to know some of the long-term trajectories of where this was going to go,” Manak said.
Shortly after his second term began, Trump declared a national emergency over illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. — an unprecedented move to trigger import taxes — and began escalating tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as up to 25% on certain products crossing the borders from Canada and Mexico.
Trump hiked existing tariffs on steel and aluminum in mid-March under trade provisions meant to protect domestic production and national security, followed by 25% levies on foreign cars and auto parts — though Trump signed two executive orders Tuesday to grant some tariff relief to carmakers.
The import taxes have alarmed investors, small businesses and American consumers following the 2024 presidential campaign when Trump made lowering prices a major tenet of his platform.
The latest University of Michigan survey of consumers — a staple indicator for economists — reported consumer outlook on personal finances and business conditions took a nosedive in April. Expectations dropped 32% since January, the largest three-month percentage decline since the 1990 recession, according to the analysis.
Manak said Trump’s tariffs are “really at odds with” with the administration’s objectives of helping U.S. manufacturers and cutting costs for Americans.
“The U.S. now has the highest tariff rates in the world,” she said. “That’s going to hurt both consuming industries that import products to make things, and then consumers as well. We’re starting to see notifications coming out on layoffs, and some small businesses considering closing up shop already. And the tariffs haven’t been in place for that long.”
Rhett Buttle, of Small Business for America’s Future, said the policies are “causing real damage in terms of not just planning, but in terms of day-to-day operations.”
Buttle, a senior advisor for the advocacy group that claims 85,000 small business members, said even if Trump begins to strike deals with other countries, entrepreneurs will likely be on edge for months to come.
“It’s that uncertainty that makes business owners not want to hire or not want to grow,” Buttle said. “So it’s like, ‘Okay, we got through this mess, but why would I hire a person if I don’t know if I’m gonna wake up in two weeks and there’s gonna be another announcement?’”
Support dropping
Trillions were erased from the U.S. stock market after “Liberation Day” — the White House’s term for the start of its global tariff policy. The S&P 500 index, which tracks the performance of the 500 largest U.S. companies, is overall down 8.5% since Trump’s inauguration, according to The Wall Street Journal’s analysis.
Numerous recent polls showed flagging support for Trump’s economic policies.
In a poll released Monday, Gallup found 89% of Americans believe tariffs will result in increasing prices. And a majority of Americans are concerned about an economic recession and increasing costs of groceries and other goods, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey between April 17 and April 22.
The Pew Research Center similarly found a growing gloomy outlook among U.S. adults from April 7 to April 13. Results showed a majority of Americans — 59% across race, age and income levels — disapproved of Trump’s approach to tariffs. But when broken down by party, the survey showed a majority of Democrats disapprove while the majority of Republicans approve of the tariff policy.
American households are poised to lose up to $2,600 annually if tariffs remain in place and U.S. fiscal policy doesn’t change, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Analyses show low-income households will be disproportionately affected.
“If these tariffs stay in place, some folks are going to benefit, but a lot of people are going to get hurt,” Manak said.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Government spending
Elon Musk, accompanied by his son X Musk and Trump, speaks during an executive order signing in the Oval Office on February 11, 2025. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Trump began his second term with a flurry of action on government spending, challenging the balance of power between the president and Congress.
Efforts to unilaterally cancel funding already approved by lawmakers, who hold the authority to spend federal dollars under the Constitution, led to confusion and frustration from both Democrats and Republicans, especially after the U.S. DOGE Service froze allocations on programs that have long elicited bipartisan support.
Many of the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back appropriations are subject to injunctions from federal courts, blocking the cuts from moving forward while the lawsuits advance through the judicial system.
Kevin Kosar, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Trump’s actions on spending so far have sought to expand the bounds of presidential authority.
“We’ve never seen a president in modern times who’s been this aggressive in trying to seize control of the power of the purse,” he said. “To just say, ‘I’m not going to fund this agency, like USAID, despite money being appropriated for it. And we’re going to walk over and take their plaque off their wall and lock their doors.’ This is new.”
Many of Trump’s actions so far indicate to Kosar that the administration expects a change to the balance of power following next year’s midterm elections, when the president’s party historically loses control of at least one chamber of Congress.
“It feels to me that the first 100 days are in large part predicated on an assumption that they may only have two years of unified Republican control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency,” he said. “We know the margins in the House are quite narrow, and the heavy use of executive actions and the simple defunding of various government contracts and agencies all through executive action, just tell me that the administration feels like they have to get everything done as fast as they possibly can, because the time is short.”
Kosar said he’s watching to see if Trump works with Republicans in Congress, while they still have unified control, to codify his executive orders into law — something he didn’t do with many of the unilateral actions he took during his first term.
“He just did executive actions, which, of course, (President Joe) Biden just undid,” he said. “And I’m just wondering: Are we going to see this movie all over again? Or is he going to actually partner with Congress on these various policy matters and pass statutes so that they stick?”
Zachary Peskowitz, associate professor of political science at Emory University, said Trump has been much more “assertive” during the last 100 days than during the first few months of 2017.
DOGE ‘winding down’
U.S. DOGE Service and Musk hit the ground running, though their actions have fallen short of the goals he set, and appear to be sunsetting with the billionaire turning his attention back toward his businesses.
“I think the big bang is winding down. They did a lot of things early on. It’s not clear how many of them are going to stick, what the consequences are,” Peskowitz said. “And I think, big picture, in terms of federal spending, the amounts of money that may have been saved or not are pretty small.”
Democrats in Congress released a tracker Tuesday listing which accounts the Trump administration has frozen or canceled to the tune of more than $430 billion.
But Trump has just gotten started.
The administration plans to submit its first budget request to Congress in the coming days, a step that’s typically taken in early February, though it happens a couple months behind schedule during a president’s first year.
That massive tax-and-spending proposal will begin the classic tug-of-war between Congress, which will draft the dozen annual appropriations bills, and Trump, who has shown a willingness to act unilaterally when he doesn’t get his way.
Trump and lawmakers must agree to some sort of government funding bill before the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, otherwise a partial government shutdown would begin. And unlike the reconciliation package that Republicans can enact all on their own, funding bills require some Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold.
Trump stands with McMahon after signing an executive order to reduce the size and scope of the Education Department during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 20, 2025. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Eliminating the Education Department
Researchers and advocates predicted even more changes to the federal role in education, underscoring anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and a continued ideological battle with higher education that have marked Trump’s approach to education policy in his first 100 days.
In a torrent of education-related decisions, Trump and his administration have tried to dismantle the Education Department via an executive order, slashed more than 1,300 employees at the department, threatened to revoke funds for schools that use DEI practices and cracked down on “woke” higher education.
The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to revoke federal funding for a number of elite universities in an attempt to make the institutions align more with them ideologically.
Rachel Perera, a governance studies fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, cited “brazen lawlessness” when reflecting on Trump’s approach to higher education in his second term.
“The ways that they’re trying to withhold funding from universities are very clearly in violation of federal law and the processes mandated by civil rights law in terms of ensuring that institutions are offered due process in assessing whether violations have taken place,” Perera said. “There’s not even a pretense of pretending to investigate some of these institutions before taking really dramatic action.”
Whether the administration’s approach continues or not depends on court action, she added.
“I think what the next three years might look like is really going to depend on how some of these lawsuits play out,” Perera said, referencing some of the major legal battles involving the Trump administration.
Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said “much of what this administration has done has been overreach.” He pointed to the Education Department’s letter threatening to yank federal funds for schools that use race-conscious practices across aspects of student life as one example.
Del Pilar, who was previously deputy secretary of postsecondary and higher education for the state of Pennsylvania, said the administration is “going to take any opportunity to grab at power that advances their ideology.”
Meanwhile, Perera said the consequences of the department implementing a reduction in force plan in March “have yet to be felt.”
“I think we will start to see really the material consequences of the reduced staffing capacity in the coming years, in terms of how programs are administered, in terms of how funding is moving out the building, in terms of auditing, making sure funding is going to the right groups of students that Congress intended for the money to go to, whether big data collection efforts that are congressionally mandated are being carried out in timely and effective ways,” she said.
The U.S. Capitol on March 14, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — Three U.S. House committees on Tuesday approved the first few bills that will make up Republicans’ massive reconciliation package after rejecting numerous Democratic amendments.
The Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Education and Workforce committees each voted mostly along party lines to send their measures to the Budget Committee, which is expected to bundle them together with the other eight bills later this month.
The additional House committee markups are scheduled to take place Wednesday and next week. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., hopes to put the entire package on the floor for a vote before the Memorial Day recess begins.
Nearly every one of the chamber’s 220 GOP lawmakers will need to vote to approve the 11-bill package in order to send it to the Senate, where Republicans will likely make changes to the legislation.
The first three markups included some of the less controversial aspects of the package for Republicans, including plans to increase spending on defense by $150 billion, a $70 billion boost to border security funding and an overhaul of federal student loans and Pell grants.
Homeland Security Chairman Mark E. Green, R-Tenn., wrote in a statement that GOP lawmakers on the panel “advanced funding to give Border Patrol agents the tools they have long requested to accomplish their homeland security mission in the field while protecting our communities.”
“Conversely, the actions of our colleagues across the aisle today proved what the American people have known for some time,” Green wrote. “Democrats would rather advocate for a radical, open-borders agenda than for the safety of their own constituents, or the CBP personnel who suffered through a historic border crisis under the Biden-Harris administration.”
The panel voted 18-14 along party lines to approve the bill.
Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., wrote in a statement after his panel approved its bill that the measures “not only would save taxpayers over $350 billion but also bring much-needed reform in three key areas: simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers.”
“I’m proud of the Committee’s work today to finally stand up and end the status quo of endless borrowing,” Walberg wrote.
That panel voted 21-14 along party lines to approve its bill.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., wrote the defense funding increase would ensure “that our national defense remains the strongest in the world and supports an agile and modern fighting force.”
That committee voted 35-21 to advance its bill, with five Democrats — Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Eugene Vindman of Virginia and George Whitesides of California — voting with all committee Republicans in favor.
House committees are expected to release bills next week showing how Republicans plan to extend the 2017 GOP tax law as well as how they plan to cut federal funding on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, program.
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, joined by GOP Reps. Lisa McClain of Michigan and Troy Downing of Montana, speaks at a news conference following a meeting of the House Republican Conference on April 29, 2025. House Republicans began the process of approving a massive bill to support President Donald Trump’s priorities on the 100th day of second presidency Tuesday. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on Tuesday kicked off their work to build consensus on “one big, beautiful bill,” to fund President Donald Trump’s priorities, including a major funding boost for immigration enforcement and border security.
After returning from a two-week recess, House lawmakers started debating and amending the various sections of the bill with markups in the Armed Services, Education and Workforce, and Homeland Security committees.
Congressional Republicans are using reconciliation — a special procedure that skirts the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster — to put together one bill to fulfill the White House’s priorities on border security, tax cuts, energy policy and defense.
The Homeland panel’s bill, which would increase funding for border security by $70 billion, aligns with Trump’s second-term agenda, which has centered on an immigration crackdown.
The Homeland Security portion of the reconciliation package recommends $46.5 billion to construct a barrier along U.S. borders and $5 billion for Customs and Border Protection facilities, including $4.1 billion to hire 3,000 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 CBP officers. It would also set aside $2 billion for retention and signing bonuses for CBP staff.
“It is critical that the Republican majority do what the people elected us to do, approve funds for effective border security and enforcement measures,” House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green of Tennessee said.
The bill also includes $2.7 billion in technology surveillance along U.S. borders and roughly $1 billion for inspection technology at ports of entry.
The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said Democrats were unified in their opposition to the proposal. He argued that roughly $70 billion in funding would only aid the Trump administration in its plans of mass deportation and not address border security.
“House Republican leadership is putting lipstick on this pig of a reconciliation package by pretending it’s about border security,” Thompson said.
Votes on all three committees’ bills, and amendments mostly from Democrats raising objections to the package, were expected late Tuesday or after midnight Wednesday. The committees are not expected to adopt any of the Democratic amendments.
Summer floor votes
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Tuesday he expects the House will spend the rest of this week and next week debating the 11 different bills in committee before rolling them all into one reconciliation package.
The full House will debate and vote to approve the legislation before Memorial Day, under the current timeline.
“I don’t know how long the Senate is going to take to do their piece,” Johnson said. “But I was very encouraged after the meeting yesterday, frankly. Leader (John) Thune and Sen. (Mike) Crapo are on point. The Senate Republicans have been working very hard together.”
Thune, of South Dakota, is the Senate majority leader and Crapo, of Idaho, chairs the tax-writing Finance Committee.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the administration would like the package to clear Congress before the Fourth of July, though Johnson said he “hopes” to finalize a deal before that deadline.
Thune said later Tuesday that the reconciliation package’s final look will be decided by what policies have the votes to get through each chamber.
“Ultimately, what gets included in a reconciliation bill will be determined by what there are 218 votes for in the House and 51, or 50, votes for in the United States Senate,” Thune said.
Democrats object to deportations
Democrats on the Homeland Security panel introduced amendments to signal their opposition to the administration’s deportation agenda.
Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter was one of several Democrats to sharply criticize the recent deportation of three U.S. citizen children to Honduras during the Homeland Security Committee’s markup.
He noted that one of the children removed with his mother to Honduras, is a 4-year-old battling Stage 4 cancer.
“This is not border security,” Carter said. “This is state-sanctioned trauma.
Democrats introduced amendments to bar federal funds being used to detain immigrants at a foreign prison, following an agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to detain more than 300 men in a notorious mega-prison. Experts have raised concerns the agreement could violate a law against funding foreign governments engaged in human rights abuses.
“This is not an idle possibility,” Democratic Rep. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island said.
He pointed out that Trump asked El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele to consider taking “homegrown” criminals, meaning U.S. citizens.
“This is insane,” Magaziner said. “It is outrageous and every American should be terrified by this prospect.”
Several other Democrats introduced amendments related to the Trump administration’s use of the prison in El Salvador.
That funding would be divvied up between numerous national security priorities, including $25 billion for Trump’s goal of having a countrywide missile defense system, similar to Israel’s Iron Dome.
The defense bill would appropriate $34 billion for shipbuilding and the maritime industrial base, $21 billion for munitions purchases, $14 billion for “initiatives to scale production of game changing new technology,” $13 billion for nuclear deterrence and $12 billion to enhance military readiness, according to a GOP summary of that bill.
Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said at the beginning of his committee’s markup that the bill would make a “generational investment in our national security.”
“It is clear we are no longer deterring our adversaries,” Rogers said. “The threats we face today from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea and others, are much more serious and challenging than we have ever faced before.”
Washington Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member on the panel, said there’s “no question that the Department of Defense has needs and there’s also no question that we as a country face threats.”
But Smith criticized Republicans for moving the defense funding boost within the massive reconciliation package, which will increase the deficit.
“We’re, once again, saying to the American people, ‘This is important but not important enough to actually pay for it.’ So the budget itself is a huge problem,” Smith said. “And you really can’t support the additional $150 billion for defense if you don’t support the overall reconciliation bill because that’s what this is. And the overall reconciliation bill, I firmly believe, is a disaster for this country.”
Smith criticized Republicans for proposing additional dollars for the Pentagon while it is run by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is under investigation for sending information about a bombing campaign in Yemen to a group chat that inadvertently included a journalist and a different group chat that included his wife, brother and others.
“They have not even begun to prove that there is a chance in hell that they will spend this money intelligently, efficiently and effectively,” Smith said. “Secretary Hegseth has proven himself to be completely incapable of doing the job of secretary of Defense.”
Cuts for Pell grants
The Education and Workforce Committee’s markup fell along similar partisan lines, with GOP lawmakers lauding the bill and Democrats rejecting Republicans’ plans seeking to overhaul federal spending.
Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., said the legislation would cut $330 billion in federal spending over the next decade by reshaping federal student loan programs and Pell grants for low-income students, among several other changes.
“Dumping more federal money into a broken system doesn’t mean that system will work,” Walberg said. “In fact, government spending on higher education has reached record highs, yet millions of students benefiting from those funds will ultimately end up with a degree that doesn’t pay off or fail to finish school altogether.”
The GOP bill, he said, would “bring much-needed reform in three key areas: simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers.”
Walberg scolded former President Joe Biden for not working with Congress to overhaul federal grant and loan programs for higher education, saying the former administration “was determined to keep pouring taxpayer funds into the abyss in a futile attempt to keep up with the unacceptable and unaccountable institutional prices.”
Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member, said that Congress should look at ways to make college more affordable through reforms, but said the GOP bill “misses the mark.”
“This current reconciliation plan would increase costs for colleges and students. It would limit students access to quality programs, which would then reduce their likelihood of finding a rewarding or successful career,” Scott said. “And then take the so-called savings to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-connected.”
Republicans “limiting the students’ access to Pell grants and federal loans,” he said, could increase the number of people who have to rely on “predatory, private loans” to pay for college.
“Put bluntly: The Republican plan will limit how much money middle- and low-income students can borrow from the federal government,” Scott said. “As a result, limiting the federal student aid that students can receive means that millions of students will not be able to access federal assistance that they need to complete their degrees. Moreover, this bill will force student borrowers into unaffordable repayment plans.”
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, joined by GOP Reps. Lisa McClain of Michigan and Troy Downing of Montana, speaks at a news conference following a meeting of the House Republican Conference on April 29, 2025. House Republicans began the process of approving a massive bill to support President Donald Trump’s priorities on the 100th day of second presidency Tuesday. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on Tuesday kicked off their work to build consensus on “one big, beautiful bill,” to fund President Donald Trump’s priorities, including a major funding boost for immigration enforcement and border security.
After returning from a two-week recess, House lawmakers started debating and amending the various sections of the bill with markups in the Armed Services, Education and Workforce, and Homeland Security committees.
Congressional Republicans are using reconciliation — a special procedure that skirts the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster — to put together one bill to fulfill the White House’s priorities on border security, tax cuts, energy policy and defense.
The Homeland panel’s bill, which would increase funding for border security by $70 billion, aligns with Trump’s second-term agenda, which has centered on an immigration crackdown.
The Homeland Security portion of the reconciliation package recommends $46.5 billion to construct a barrier along U.S. borders and $5 billion for Customs and Border Protection facilities, including $4.1 billion to hire 3,000 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 CBP officers. It would also set aside $2 billion for retention and signing bonuses for CBP staff.
“It is critical that the Republican majority do what the people elected us to do, approve funds for effective border security and enforcement measures,” House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green of Tennessee said.
The bill also includes $2.7 billion in technology surveillance along U.S. borders and roughly $1 billion for inspection technology at ports of entry.
The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said Democrats were unified in their opposition to the proposal. He argued that roughly $70 billion in funding would only aid the Trump administration in its plans of mass deportation and not address border security.
“House Republican leadership is putting lipstick on this pig of a reconciliation package by pretending it’s about border security,” Thompson said.
Votes on all three committees’ bills, and amendments mostly from Democrats raising objections to the package, were expected late Tuesday or after midnight Wednesday. The committees are not expected to adopt any of the Democratic amendments.
Summer floor votes
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Tuesday he expects the House will spend the rest of this week and next week debating the 11 different bills in committee before rolling them all into one reconciliation package.
The full House will debate and vote to approve the legislation before Memorial Day, under the current timeline.
“I don’t know how long the Senate is going to take to do their piece,” Johnson said. “But I was very encouraged after the meeting yesterday, frankly. Leader (John) Thune and Sen. (Mike) Crapo are on point. The Senate Republicans have been working very hard together.”
Thune, of South Dakota, is the Senate majority leader and Crapo, of Idaho, chairs the tax-writing Finance Committee.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the administration would like the package to clear Congress before the Fourth of July, though Johnson said he “hopes” to finalize a deal before that deadline.
Thune said later Tuesday that the reconciliation package’s final look will be decided by what policies have the votes to get through each chamber.
“Ultimately, what gets included in a reconciliation bill will be determined by what there are 218 votes for in the House and 51, or 50, votes for in the United States Senate,” Thune said.
Democrats object to deportations
Democrats on the Homeland Security panel introduced amendments to signal their opposition to the administration’s deportation agenda.
Louisiana Rep. Troy Carter was one of several Democrats to sharply criticize the recent deportation of three U.S. citizen children to Honduras during the Homeland Security Committee’s markup.
He noted that one of the children removed with his mother to Honduras, is a 4-year-old battling Stage 4 cancer.
“This is not border security,” Carter said. “This is state-sanctioned trauma.
Democrats introduced amendments to bar federal funds being used to detain immigrants at a foreign prison, following an agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to detain more than 300 men in a notorious mega-prison. Experts have raised concerns the agreement could violate a law against funding foreign governments engaged in human rights abuses.
“This is not an idle possibility,” Democratic Rep. Seth Magaziner of Rhode Island said.
He pointed out that Trump asked El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele to consider taking “homegrown” criminals, meaning U.S. citizens.
“This is insane,” Magaziner said. “It is outrageous and every American should be terrified by this prospect.”
Several other Democrats introduced amendments related to the Trump administration’s use of the prison in El Salvador.
That funding would be divvied up between numerous national security priorities, including $25 billion for Trump’s goal of having a countrywide missile defense system, similar to Israel’s Iron Dome.
The defense bill would appropriate $34 billion for shipbuilding and the maritime industrial base, $21 billion for munitions purchases, $14 billion for “initiatives to scale production of game changing new technology,” $13 billion for nuclear deterrence and $12 billion to enhance military readiness, according to a GOP summary of that bill.
Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said at the beginning of his committee’s markup that the bill would make a “generational investment in our national security.”
“It is clear we are no longer deterring our adversaries,” Rogers said. “The threats we face today from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea and others, are much more serious and challenging than we have ever faced before.”
Washington Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member on the panel, said there’s “no question that the Department of Defense has needs and there’s also no question that we as a country face threats.”
But Smith criticized Republicans for moving the defense funding boost within the massive reconciliation package, which will increase the deficit.
“We’re, once again, saying to the American people, ‘This is important but not important enough to actually pay for it.’ So the budget itself is a huge problem,” Smith said. “And you really can’t support the additional $150 billion for defense if you don’t support the overall reconciliation bill because that’s what this is. And the overall reconciliation bill, I firmly believe, is a disaster for this country.”
Smith criticized Republicans for proposing additional dollars for the Pentagon while it is run by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is under investigation for sending information about a bombing campaign in Yemen to a group chat that inadvertently included a journalist and a different group chat that included his wife, brother and others.
“They have not even begun to prove that there is a chance in hell that they will spend this money intelligently, efficiently and effectively,” Smith said. “Secretary Hegseth has proven himself to be completely incapable of doing the job of secretary of Defense.”
Cuts for Pell grants
The Education and Workforce Committee’s markup fell along similar partisan lines, with GOP lawmakers lauding the bill and Democrats rejecting Republicans’ plans seeking to overhaul federal spending.
Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., said the legislation would cut $330 billion in federal spending over the next decade by reshaping federal student loan programs and Pell grants for low-income students, among several other changes.
“Dumping more federal money into a broken system doesn’t mean that system will work,” Walberg said. “In fact, government spending on higher education has reached record highs, yet millions of students benefiting from those funds will ultimately end up with a degree that doesn’t pay off or fail to finish school altogether.”
The GOP bill, he said, would “bring much-needed reform in three key areas: simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers.”
Walberg scolded former President Joe Biden for not working with Congress to overhaul federal grant and loan programs for higher education, saying the former administration “was determined to keep pouring taxpayer funds into the abyss in a futile attempt to keep up with the unacceptable and unaccountable institutional prices.”
Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member, said that Congress should look at ways to make college more affordable through reforms, but said the GOP bill “misses the mark.”
“This current reconciliation plan would increase costs for colleges and students. It would limit students access to quality programs, which would then reduce their likelihood of finding a rewarding or successful career,” Scott said. “And then take the so-called savings to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy and the well-connected.”
Republicans “limiting the students’ access to Pell grants and federal loans,” he said, could increase the number of people who have to rely on “predatory, private loans” to pay for college.
“Put bluntly: The Republican plan will limit how much money middle- and low-income students can borrow from the federal government,” Scott said. “As a result, limiting the federal student aid that students can receive means that millions of students will not be able to access federal assistance that they need to complete their degrees. Moreover, this bill will force student borrowers into unaffordable repayment plans.”
A doctor holding T-shaped intrauterine birth control device. (Getty Photos)
WASHINGTON — The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to withhold Title X family planning grants.
The 35-page filing alleges the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the reproductive health program with funding approved by Congress, has withheld $65.8 million over disagreements about organizations’ “opposition to racism” and “providing care to undocumented immigrants.”
“The Affected Members and their subrecipients operate hundreds of Title X service sites across these states, which together provide family planning care to hundreds of thousands of low-income patients, many of whom would not otherwise be able to afford such care,” the complaint says.
“Depriving these individuals of the high-quality, essential health care provided by Title X-funded health centers reduces access to (sexually transmitted infection) screening and treatment, cancer screening, and contraception, threatens the health and wellbeing of the individuals who rely on Title X for care, and undermines public health.”
The lawsuit contends California, Hawaiʻi, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah have been completely cut off from Title X family planning grants, while Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have had their access to the funding reduced.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but hadn’t been assigned to a judge as of Thursday afternoon.
HHS did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Another suit
The lawsuit is the latest filed by organizations and Democratic state attorneys general challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze funding for dozens of programs.
Some, but not all, of the cases are subject to injunctions from district courts that so far have prevented the spending cuts from taking effect while the cases proceed.
The Impoundment Control Act, a 1970s-era law that requires the president to spend the money Congress appropriates, is the subject of many of the disagreements between those filing lawsuits and the Trump administration.
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association wrote in the lawsuit that it represents nearly 900 members, including state, county and local health departments.
Its members “operate or administer more than 3,000 health centers that provide family planning services to more than 2.2 million patients each year.”
HHS sent letters to some of the association’s members in late March, notifying them that their Title X family planning grant funding was “being temporarily withheld based on possible violations of the terms and conditions set forth in the notice of award,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges HHS’ decision to freeze the funding stems from its members having statements on their websites “indicating support for diversity, equity, and inclusion and opposition to racism, which, HHS claims, ‘suggests’ that the Affected Members are or may be engaged in conduct that violates federal civil rights laws.”
The federal government also chose to withhold the Title X funding over “a single public statement that HHS claims gives it ‘reason to believe’ that some of the Affected Members may be providing care to undocumented immigrants, in violation of Executive Order 14218 ‘Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.’”
The lawsuit says that HHS never actually told any of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association’s members that they had violated federal regulations, executive orders, or the law. The letters from HHS referenced only “possible violations.”
U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson hold a press conference on the Republican budget resolution at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025. The Republican leaders each face a challenge in uniting their divided conferences to pass a massive tax and spending plan supported by President Donald Trump. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress have a difficult few months ahead of them as they look to broker agreement within their exceptionally narrow majority on policy issues that have already begun to divide centrists from far-right members of the party.
The negotiations will be the first test of the sort for Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who weren’t in the top posts eight years ago when the GOP passed its last reconciliation package.
Tax law and funding cuts to Medicaid are the issues most likely to prevent one “big, beautiful bill” from moving through both chambers and reaching President Donald Trump’s desk.
Republican leaders will also need to be cautious as the package takes shape about what types of proposals their more vulnerable members vote on, especially if they hope to hold onto at least one chamber of Congress following next year’s midterm elections.
“The swing-district Republicans are in a tougher spot because their voters do want to see some of those tax cuts extended, but they don’t want to see it at the expense of programs like Medicaid,” said Dr. Ben Sommers, Huntley Quelch professor of health care economics at Harvard.
“And so they’re walking a tightrope,” he said. “And at least until there’s a final bill on the floor, a lot of them are going to just keep pushing that final decision down the road and hope that something else happens and that they don’t have to make that tough call.”
The decision to bundle together a permanent extension of the 2017 tax law, hundreds of billions in new spending on border security and defense, a rewrite of the nation’s energy policy and spending cuts means that centrist Republicans will have to cast one take-it-or-leave-it vote.
Breaking up the sweeping package into two or more bills would have given at-risk Republicans the opportunity for more tailored votes, but GOP leaders ultimately rejected that idea — a choice that will put moderates under increasing pressure as the legislation takes shape in the coming weeks.
Democrats in both chambers are expected to unanimously oppose the package.
Normally that would present a challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are usually needed to limit debate on a bill and move onto final passage. But GOP leaders are using the reconciliation process to pass their bill, meaning they only need the support of a simple majority in the Senate.
Slim margins
House committee chairs are expected to release and mark up 11 bills after the chamber returns from a two-week break in late April, though that’s only the first step.
Once the pieces are all bundled into one package, it will need to get across the House floor without losing more than three Republican votes, a much narrower threshold than the dozen GOP lawmakers in that chamber who voted against the final version of the 2017 tax law.
Republican leaders will then need to keep the party from making significant changes to the package in the Senate, where lawmakers will be able to offer as many amendments as they want when the bill comes to the floor.
That vote-a-rama will test party unity, with Democrats likely to propose amendments re-writing or eliminating specific sections of the bill — especially those addressing tax provisions benefiting the wealthy or corporations, and Medicaid spending cuts.
If more than three Senate Republicans break from the party to alter various elements, it could endanger final approval. However, if GOP senators from swing states vote to keep unpopular provisions in the bill, it could lead to them losing their next reelection bid to a Democrat.
Difference of opinion on Medicaid
The disagreement between centrist Republicans and far-right lawmakers over potential spending cuts to Medicaid is already on full display.
“Medicaid is debilitating the vulnerable, not helping them,” Roy said. “We are shoveling money out to the able-bodied on the back of expansion of Obamacare.”
On the other ideological side of the conference, a group of 14 centrist House Republicans sent a letter to GOP leaders a few days after voting to adopt the budget resolution to announce they “cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.”
“Cuts to Medicaid also threaten the viability of hospitals, nursing homes, and safety-net providers nationwide,” they wrote. “Many hospitals — particularly in rural and underserved areas — rely heavily on Medicaid funding, with some receiving over half their revenue from the program alone.
“Providers in these areas are especially at risk of closure, with many unable to recover. When hospitals close, it affects all constituents, regardless of healthcare coverage.”
Failed Obamacare repeal
Republican leaders in Congress will want to avoid a repeat of the last time the party tried to overhaul health care in a reconciliation package.
During Trump’s first term, following years of GOP politicians pledging to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, they sought to do just that through the same complex reconciliation process they’re using now.
Collins said in a floor speech at the time she voted against the House’s version of the bill for several reasons, including that it would have made “sweeping changes to the Medicaid program — an important safety net that for more than 50 years has helped poor and disabled individuals, including children and low-income seniors, receive health care.”
Murkowski wrote in a statement that she voted against the Senate’s so-called “skinny” repeal bill because “both sides must do better on process and substance.”
“I know that access to affordable care is a challenge for so many. I hear from fishermen who can’t afford the coverage that they have, small business owners who can’t afford insurance at all, and those who have gained coverage for the first time in their life,” Murkowski wrote. “These Alaskans have shared their anxiety that their personal situation may be made worse under the legislation considered this week.”
Medicaid cuts could hurt state budgets
GOP lawmakers in Congress won’t be the only members of the party that leaders need to keep in the fold. Republican governors may not have a vote in either chamber, but they do have considerable sway with their congressional delegations and many red states have a substantial percentage of their Medicaid programs covered by federal dollars.
Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo released a letter last month seeking to assuage fears about potential federal cuts to Medicaid, writing that he was “actively engaged in conversations with the White House and others in the federal government to relay our state’s concerns.”
“An abrupt reduction in federal funding would not only disrupt care for those who rely on Medicaid, but would also destabilize public and private healthcare providers, leading to workforce reductions, service limitations, and financial strain on already overburdened health care facilities,” Lombardo wrote.
National Governors Association Chair Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, and Vice Chair Kevin Stitt, an Oklahoma Republican, wrote in a joint statement released in March that the organization is “committed to advocating for a robust and efficient health and human services system, including Medicaid.”
“Without consultation and proper planning, Congressionally proposed reductions to Medicaid would impact state budgets, rural hospitals and health care service providers,” they wrote. “It is necessary for Governors to have a seat at the table when discussing any reforms and cuts to Medicaid funding.”
Federal spending cuts to Medicaid could lead some of the 40 states that have expanded the program under Obamacare to roll it back, though Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have the expansion in their constitutions, making the impact of congressional action more complicated for their budgets and residents.
Leighton Ku, professor of health policy and management at The George Washington University, said during an interview that even though GOP governors aren’t members of Congress, they still hold “powerful influence.”
“We’re talking about deep cuts in federal spending that will have profound effects on state economies and state employment,” Ku said. “Governors, particularly those who expanded Medicaid, should feel fairly nervous about: What are the implications for their states in terms of both their political futures as well as what it will do to their state economies?”
“Again, we’re talking about the possibility of maybe somewhere on the order of a million jobs being lost simply because of the Medicaid cuts,” he added. “And that should cause some trepidation among governors.”
Republicans in Congress, Ku said, are trying to reduce spending. But when it comes to Medicaid, where the cost of administering the program is split between states and the federal government, any change to the federal share will come at the expense of the states.
“So the states end up being losers,” he said. “And this will cause states’ governors some unease. Again, it depends on where they lie politically: They may still be willing to accept cuts if it fits in with their ideologies.”
State and local taxes
Republicans also find themselves in a sticky situation when it comes to a major tax provision set to expire at the end of 2025: a limit on the amount of state and local taxes a taxpayer can deduct on their federal tax return. The limit is often simply referred to as the SALT cap.
Like proposed Medicaid cuts, the SALT debate has potential to change the calculus of Republicans willing to vote for the one large reconciliation bill.
For many years prior to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers were able to take full advantage of deducting state and local taxes from their federal taxable income. But in that law, GOP lawmakers changed course and enacted a $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction to raise revenue to cover some of the law’s massive tax breaks.
The ability to deduct all eligible state and local taxes on federal tax returns was a win for wealthy households located in states and municipalities with steeper taxes.
At the time, Democrats, who wholesale opposed Trump’s tax agenda, saw the SALT cap as an attack on high-earning, high-tax blue states. But the SALT cap drew ire from across the aisle as well, said Kyle Pomerleau, senior fellow and federal tax policy expert for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
“The original bill also had a few Republicans that didn’t vote for it because of the cap. So this has been controversial to some degree from the very beginning,” Pomerleau said.
With such a narrow majority in the House, Republicans from high-tax areas, including those representing New York’s Long Island and Staten Island and California’s wealthy suburbs, will have leverage in the coming debate.
“Republicans generally don’t come from those states. There’s only a handful of them. But that brings us back to the vote margin that Republicans have,” Pomerleau said. “They have a lot of power this time around to really get what they want. These lawmakers who represent people that are concerned about this cap are going to want that cap raised.”
The issue is one of the few tax topics not polarized by party because it is defined by location, said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, a think tank that generally supports lower taxes.
“It’s an interesting sort of debate, just because a lot of tax policy debates have political, partisan, ideological components, right? That’s somewhat predictable,” Watson said. “What’s interesting about SALT is actually it’s also a strong geographic story.”
Watson published the Tax Foundation’s 2023 county-by-county maps of state and local taxes paid as well as deducted from federal taxes in 2020. The data showed the top reporting counties were concentrated in California and New York.
Raising cap would cost federal government
But many Republicans would be happy if the cap on SALT deductions stayed in place to offset the cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts.
Raising the cap beyond the current $10,000 limit could reduce federal revenue between $200 billion to $1.2 trillion over the next decade, depending on what level Congress decides, according to a January analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that leans center-left.
In other words, households deducting more from their federal taxable income means the federal government reaping less revenue.
“Just to give you some order of magnitude, we looked at what would happen if you raised the cap from $10,000 to $20,000. That would cost (the federal government) $250 billion over 10 years. That’s a big number,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Deficit hawks, like Roy of Texas and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have spokenout in recent months against raising the cap.
And while more federal revenue is lost with each dollar the cap increases, the benefit mainly goes to high-income earners, according to another Tax Policy Center analysis.
“We estimated when you raise the (SALT cap) from $10,000 to $20,000, 93% of the benefit goes to the top …20% , which are people making more than $200,000,” Gleckman said. “And half of it goes to people in the top 5% who are people who make more than $400,000.”
Most taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 sits at $15,000 for single taxpayers or $30,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.
“That’s why the vast majority of people get no benefit from this. It’s only people who make a lot of money, who itemize, and who pay a lot of tax who get caught up in the cap,” Gleckman said.
But they may have an outsized voice as Congress hammers out its reconciliation bill in the coming months.
Johnson, a Louisiana Republican whose constituents would not benefit from raising the SALT cap, will have a “tough balancing act,” Gleckman said.
“Mike Johnson looks at the narrow majority he has in the House, and he sees if he loses half a dozen seats from places like New York and California because he doesn’t fix the cap then he could not be speaker anymore,” he said.
Republicans in the bipartisan SALT caucus include Reps. Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota, Andrew Garbarino and Nicole Malliotakis, all representing New York, as well as Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey, and Young Kim of California.
Rachel Snyderman, managing director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said “complicated political tetris” is likely to emerge as lawmakers negotiate the reconciliation bill.
“The caucus that has called for (the cap’s) elimination over the past years has only gotten louder and more vocal and see this year as the opportunity to flex their muscle,” Snyderman said.
A doctor holding T-shaped intrauterine birth control device. (Getty Photos)
WASHINGTON — The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging the Trump administration’s decision to withhold Title X family planning grants.
The 35-page filing alleges the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the reproductive health program with funding approved by Congress, has withheld $65.8 million over disagreements about organizations’ “opposition to racism” and “providing care to undocumented immigrants.”
“The Affected Members and their subrecipients operate hundreds of Title X service sites across these states, which together provide family planning care to hundreds of thousands of low-income patients, many of whom would not otherwise be able to afford such care,” the complaint says.
“Depriving these individuals of the high-quality, essential health care provided by Title X-funded health centers reduces access to (sexually transmitted infection) screening and treatment, cancer screening, and contraception, threatens the health and wellbeing of the individuals who rely on Title X for care, and undermines public health.”
The lawsuit contends California, Hawaiʻi, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah have been completely cut off from Title X family planning grants, while Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have had their access to the funding reduced.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia but hadn’t been assigned to a judge as of Thursday afternoon.
HHS did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Another suit
The lawsuit is the latest filed by organizations and Democratic state attorneys general challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze funding for dozens of programs.
Some, but not all, of the cases are subject to injunctions from district courts that so far have prevented the spending cuts from taking effect while the cases proceed.
The Impoundment Control Act, a 1970s-era law that requires the president to spend the money Congress appropriates, is the subject of many of the disagreements between those filing lawsuits and the Trump administration.
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association wrote in the lawsuit that it represents nearly 900 members, including state, county and local health departments.
Its members “operate or administer more than 3,000 health centers that provide family planning services to more than 2.2 million patients each year.”
HHS sent letters to some of the association’s members in late March, notifying them that their Title X family planning grant funding was “being temporarily withheld based on possible violations of the terms and conditions set forth in the notice of award,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit alleges HHS’ decision to freeze the funding stems from its members having statements on their websites “indicating support for diversity, equity, and inclusion and opposition to racism, which, HHS claims, ‘suggests’ that the Affected Members are or may be engaged in conduct that violates federal civil rights laws.”
The federal government also chose to withhold the Title X funding over “a single public statement that HHS claims gives it ‘reason to believe’ that some of the Affected Members may be providing care to undocumented immigrants, in violation of Executive Order 14218 ‘Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.’”
The lawsuit says that HHS never actually told any of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association’s members that they had violated federal regulations, executive orders, or the law. The letters from HHS referenced only “possible violations.”
U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson hold a press conference on the Republican budget resolution at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025. The Republican leaders each face a challenge in uniting their divided conferences to pass a massive tax and spending plan supported by President Donald Trump. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress have a difficult few months ahead of them as they look to broker agreement within their exceptionally narrow majority on policy issues that have already begun to divide centrists from far-right members of the party.
The negotiations will be the first test of the sort for Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who weren’t in the top posts eight years ago when the GOP passed its last reconciliation package.
Tax law and funding cuts to Medicaid are the issues most likely to prevent one “big, beautiful bill” from moving through both chambers and reaching President Donald Trump’s desk.
Republican leaders will also need to be cautious as the package takes shape about what types of proposals their more vulnerable members vote on, especially if they hope to hold onto at least one chamber of Congress following next year’s midterm elections.
“The swing-district Republicans are in a tougher spot because their voters do want to see some of those tax cuts extended, but they don’t want to see it at the expense of programs like Medicaid,” said Dr. Ben Sommers, Huntley Quelch professor of health care economics at Harvard.
“And so they’re walking a tightrope,” he said. “And at least until there’s a final bill on the floor, a lot of them are going to just keep pushing that final decision down the road and hope that something else happens and that they don’t have to make that tough call.”
The decision to bundle together a permanent extension of the 2017 tax law, hundreds of billions in new spending on border security and defense, a rewrite of the nation’s energy policy and spending cuts means that centrist Republicans will have to cast one take-it-or-leave-it vote.
Federal Fallout
As federal funding and systems dwindle, states are left to decide how and whether to make up the difference. Read the latest.
Breaking up the sweeping package into two or more bills would have given at-risk Republicans the opportunity for more tailored votes, but GOP leaders ultimately rejected that idea — a choice that will put moderates under increasing pressure as the legislation takes shape in the coming weeks.
Democrats in both chambers are expected to unanimously oppose the package.
Normally that would present a challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are usually needed to limit debate on a bill and move onto final passage. But GOP leaders are using the reconciliation process to pass their bill, meaning they only need the support of a simple majority in the Senate.
Slim margins
House committee chairs are expected to release and mark up 11 bills after the chamber returns from a two-week break in late April, though that’s only the first step.
Once the pieces are all bundled into one package, it will need to get across the House floor without losing more than three Republican votes, a much narrower threshold than the dozen GOP lawmakers in that chamber who voted against the final version of the 2017 tax law.
Republican leaders will then need to keep the party from making significant changes to the package in the Senate, where lawmakers will be able to offer as many amendments as they want when the bill comes to the floor.
That vote-a-rama will test party unity, with Democrats likely to propose amendments re-writing or eliminating specific sections of the bill — especially those addressing tax provisions benefiting the wealthy or corporations, and Medicaid spending cuts.
If more than three Senate Republicans break from the party to alter various elements, it could endanger final approval. However, if GOP senators from swing states vote to keep unpopular provisions in the bill, it could lead to them losing their next reelection bid to a Democrat.
Difference of opinion on Medicaid
The disagreement between centrist Republicans and far-right lawmakers over potential spending cuts to Medicaid is already on full display.
“Medicaid is debilitating the vulnerable, not helping them,” Roy said. “We are shoveling money out to the able-bodied on the back of expansion of Obamacare.”
On the other ideological side of the conference, a group of 14 centrist House Republicans sent a letter to GOP leaders a few days after voting to adopt the budget resolution to announce they “cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.”
“Cuts to Medicaid also threaten the viability of hospitals, nursing homes, and safety-net providers nationwide,” they wrote. “Many hospitals — particularly in rural and underserved areas — rely heavily on Medicaid funding, with some receiving over half their revenue from the program alone.
“Providers in these areas are especially at risk of closure, with many unable to recover. When hospitals close, it affects all constituents, regardless of healthcare coverage.”
Failed Obamacare repeal
Republican leaders in Congress will want to avoid a repeat of the last time the party tried to overhaul health care in a reconciliation package.
During Trump’s first term, following years of GOP politicians pledging to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, they sought to do just that through the same complex reconciliation process they’re using now.
Collins said in a floor speech at the time she voted against the House’s version of the bill for several reasons, including that it would have made “sweeping changes to the Medicaid program — an important safety net that for more than 50 years has helped poor and disabled individuals, including children and low-income seniors, receive health care.”
Murkowski wrote in a statement that she voted against the Senate’s so-called “skinny” repeal bill because “both sides must do better on process and substance.”
“I know that access to affordable care is a challenge for so many. I hear from fishermen who can’t afford the coverage that they have, small business owners who can’t afford insurance at all, and those who have gained coverage for the first time in their life,” Murkowski wrote. “These Alaskans have shared their anxiety that their personal situation may be made worse under the legislation considered this week.”
Medicaid cuts could hurt state budgets
GOP lawmakers in Congress won’t be the only members of the party that leaders need to keep in the fold. Republican governors may not have a vote in either chamber, but they do have considerable sway with their congressional delegations and many red states have a substantial percentage of their Medicaid programs covered by federal dollars.
Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo released a letter last month seeking to assuage fears about potential federal cuts to Medicaid, writing that he was “actively engaged in conversations with the White House and others in the federal government to relay our state’s concerns.”
“An abrupt reduction in federal funding would not only disrupt care for those who rely on Medicaid, but would also destabilize public and private healthcare providers, leading to workforce reductions, service limitations, and financial strain on already overburdened health care facilities,” Lombardo wrote.
National Governors Association Chair Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, and Vice Chair Kevin Stitt, an Oklahoma Republican, wrote in a joint statement released in March that the organization is “committed to advocating for a robust and efficient health and human services system, including Medicaid.”
“Without consultation and proper planning, Congressionally proposed reductions to Medicaid would impact state budgets, rural hospitals and health care service providers,” they wrote. “It is necessary for Governors to have a seat at the table when discussing any reforms and cuts to Medicaid funding.”
Federal spending cuts to Medicaid could lead some of the 40 states that have expanded the program under Obamacare to roll it back, though Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have the expansion in their constitutions, making the impact of congressional action more complicated for their budgets and residents.
Leighton Ku, professor of health policy and management at The George Washington University, said during an interview that even though GOP governors aren’t members of Congress, they still hold “powerful influence.”
“We’re talking about deep cuts in federal spending that will have profound effects on state economies and state employment,” Ku said. “Governors, particularly those who expanded Medicaid, should feel fairly nervous about: What are the implications for their states in terms of both their political futures as well as what it will do to their state economies?”
“Again, we’re talking about the possibility of maybe somewhere on the order of a million jobs being lost simply because of the Medicaid cuts,” he added. “And that should cause some trepidation among governors.”
Republicans in Congress, Ku said, are trying to reduce spending. But when it comes to Medicaid, where the cost of administering the program is split between states and the federal government, any change to the federal share will come at the expense of the states.
“So the states end up being losers,” he said. “And this will cause states’ governors some unease. Again, it depends on where they lie politically: They may still be willing to accept cuts if it fits in with their ideologies.”
State and local taxes
Republicans also find themselves in a sticky situation when it comes to a major tax provision set to expire at the end of 2025: a limit on the amount of state and local taxes a taxpayer can deduct on their federal tax return. The limit is often simply referred to as the SALT cap.
Like proposed Medicaid cuts, the SALT debate has potential to change the calculus of Republicans willing to vote for the one large reconciliation bill.
For many years prior to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers were able to take full advantage of deducting state and local taxes from their federal taxable income. But in that law, GOP lawmakers changed course and enacted a $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction to raise revenue to cover some of the law’s massive tax breaks.
The ability to deduct all eligible state and local taxes on federal tax returns was a win for wealthy households located in states and municipalities with steeper taxes.
At the time, Democrats, who wholesale opposed Trump’s tax agenda, saw the SALT cap as an attack on high-earning, high-tax blue states. But the SALT cap drew ire from across the aisle as well, said Kyle Pomerleau, senior fellow and federal tax policy expert for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
“The original bill also had a few Republicans that didn’t vote for it because of the cap. So this has been controversial to some degree from the very beginning,” Pomerleau said.
With such a narrow majority in the House, Republicans from high-tax areas, including those representing New York’s Long Island and Staten Island and California’s wealthy suburbs, will have leverage in the coming debate.
“Republicans generally don’t come from those states. There’s only a handful of them. But that brings us back to the vote margin that Republicans have,” Pomerleau said. “They have a lot of power this time around to really get what they want. These lawmakers who represent people that are concerned about this cap are going to want that cap raised.”
The issue is one of the few tax topics not polarized by party because it is defined by location, said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, a think tank that generally supports lower taxes.
“It’s an interesting sort of debate, just because a lot of tax policy debates have political, partisan, ideological components, right? That’s somewhat predictable,” Watson said. “What’s interesting about SALT is actually it’s also a strong geographic story.”
Watson published the Tax Foundation’s 2023 county-by-county maps of state and local taxes paid as well as deducted from federal taxes in 2020. The data showed the top reporting counties were concentrated in California and New York.
Raising cap would cost federal government
But many Republicans would be happy if the cap on SALT deductions stayed in place to offset the cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts.
Raising the cap beyond the current $10,000 limit could reduce federal revenue between $200 billion to $1.2 trillion over the next decade, depending on what level Congress decides, according to a January analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that leans center-left.
In other words, households deducting more from their federal taxable income means the federal government reaping less revenue.
“Just to give you some order of magnitude, we looked at what would happen if you raised the cap from $10,000 to $20,000. That would cost (the federal government) $250 billion over 10 years. That’s a big number,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
Deficit hawks, like Roy of Texas and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have spokenout in recent months against raising the cap.
And while more federal revenue is lost with each dollar the cap increases, the benefit mainly goes to high-income earners, according to another Tax Policy Center analysis.
“We estimated when you raise the (SALT cap) from $10,000 to $20,000, 93% of the benefit goes to the top …20% , which are people making more than $200,000,” Gleckman said. “And half of it goes to people in the top 5% who are people who make more than $400,000.”
Most taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 sits at $15,000 for single taxpayers or $30,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.
“That’s why the vast majority of people get no benefit from this. It’s only people who make a lot of money, who itemize, and who pay a lot of tax who get caught up in the cap,” Gleckman said.
But they may have an outsized voice as Congress hammers out its reconciliation bill in the coming months.
Johnson, a Louisiana Republican whose constituents would not benefit from raising the SALT cap, will have a “tough balancing act,” Gleckman said.
“Mike Johnson looks at the narrow majority he has in the House, and he sees if he loses half a dozen seats from places like New York and California because he doesn’t fix the cap then he could not be speaker anymore,” he said.
Republicans in the bipartisan SALT caucus include Reps. Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota, Andrew Garbarino and Nicole Malliotakis, all representing New York, as well as Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey, and Young Kim of California.
Rachel Snyderman, managing director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said “complicated political tetris” is likely to emerge as lawmakers negotiate the reconciliation bill.
“The caucus that has called for (the cap’s) elimination over the past years has only gotten louder and more vocal and see this year as the opportunity to flex their muscle,” Snyderman said.
Login
