Highway 170 in North Hollywood, California. (Photo by Trevor Srednick/Getty Images)

The U.S. Senate voted early Thursday to prevent California from enforcing regulations on tailpipe emission from new cars and trucks, upending state regulations for the nearly 40% of Americans whose states follow California standards.

The House has already passed an identical measure, meaning the Senate vote sends the resolution to President Donald Trump’s desk.

The 51-46 vote, with Michigan Democrat Elissa Slotkin joining all Republicans present to vote in favor, cleared a Congressional Review Act resolution repealing Environmental Protection Agency waivers that allow California to set regulations for emissions from cars and light-duty trucks.

The state policy includes a ramp-up to having no new gas-powered cars sold in the state by 2035.

Democrats blasted the near-party-line vote for contradicting the Senate parliamentarian, who’d ruled the waiver that the EPA had granted to California to set its own tailpipe standards was not a regulation that could be rolled back under the Congressional Review Act, or CRA.

The CRA allows for a simple majority in the Senate to vote to repeal recent executive branch rules, bypassing the chamber’s usual 60-vote threshold for legislation.

‘Chaos and uncertainty’ around the U.S.

The EPA under President Joe Biden issued waivers under a Clean Air Act provision that allows California, which had more stringent standards than what Congress enacted in the 1970 law, to set its own standards for air pollution.

No other state is allowed to set independent standards, but any state may adopt California’s.

For the light-duty vehicle emissions rule, 17 other states — Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington — and the District of Columbia adopted some portion of the standard.

The action by the Senate, particularly because of the mechanism for revoking the waiver, made the future of the standards in all those states uncertain, Justin Balik, vice president for states at the national environmental advocacy group Evergreen Action, said in a Thursday interview.

“What, fundamentally, they’re doing is sowing a huge amount of chaos and uncertainty in states around the country, not just in California,” he said of the senators.

Slotkin, who voted against procedural measures before her vote in favor of the resolution itself, said her vote was in defense of her state’s automotive industry. Slotkin campaigned on a promise not to allow an electric vehicle mandate.

“Today, I voted to prevent California and the states that follow its standard from effectively banning gas-powered cars by 2035,” she wrote in a statement. “I have a special responsibility to stand up for the more than one million Michiganders whose livelihoods depend on the U.S. auto industry.”

Debate over choice

Critics said the state regulation was effectively an electric vehicle mandate that robbed consumers of the option to purchase the vehicle of their choice.

Because of California’s market share — the state accounts for 11% of cars and trucks sold in the country, according to the California Air Resources Board — and adoption by other states, the Golden State standard had a virtually nationwide effect, they argued.

Republicans in the Senate focused on the 2035 deadline to end sales of new gas-powered vehicles, describing it as an electric vehicle mandate.

In a video posted to social media, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, John Barrasso of Wyoming, stood next to Shelley Moore Capito, the West Virginia Republican chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and touted the vote as a victory for consumer choice.

“Republicans have defeated Democrats’ delusional dream of forcing every American to drive an electric vehicle,” Barrasso said. “They wanted to force-feed the entire country things that don’t necessarily work, not practical.”

But proponents of the California standards said the Senate was removing choice from state policymakers, despite Republicans’ longtime advocacy for state and local control.

Manish Bapna, the president of the advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, blasted the move in a statement that said senators undermined state power.

“This vote is an unprecedented and reckless attack on states’ legal authority to address the pollution causing asthma, lung disease and heart conditions,” Bapna said. “After a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign from Big Oil, Republicans readily jettisoned their long-held view that states can best enact measures that reflect the values and interests of their residents.

“If other states don’t like California’s approach, they don’t need to follow it,” the statement continued. “But federal lawmakers shouldn’t be intervening to block states from providing cleaner air and a healthier environment.”

Procedural fight

Republicans’ use of the Congressional Review Act provoked a backlash from Democrats and environmental allies, who described it as “going nuclear” to tank the chamber’s filibuster rule.

The Senate parliamentarian and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the waiver could not be repealed with a CRA resolution, but Senate Republicans opted to use the procedure anyway.

“Senate Republicans exposed themselves as fair weather institutionalists. By overriding the parliamentarian — which the chair explicitly noted that the parliamentarian has been overridden — and in order to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, Republicans have eroded away at the Senate foundation and undermined this institution they claim to care about,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said after a procedural vote late Wednesday.

Republicans defended the move, saying they were responding to an unprecedented case in the chamber. The question of how Senate rules applied to the waiver should be decided by senators themselves, Majority Leader John Thune said.

“I believe that when the Senate is facing a novel situation like this one, with disagreement among its members, it is appropriate for the Senate to speak as a body to the question – something the Senate does when questions over application of the rules arise,” he said in a floor speech.

Thune, of South Dakota, noted that the Senate resolved a rules question with a floor vote just last year after a Democrat raised a point of order against a Republican’s attempt to fast-track a measure.

“Nobody at the time cried nuclear, nobody said the Democrat member was blowing up the Senate – in fact, most members probably don’t even remember the situation, because it was just the Senate doing what the Senate is supposed to do, and that’s voting on how to apply the rules when faced with a new situation.”

Uncertainty abounds

Critics of the move attacked the process, the policy and the precedent, saying the Senate undid a half-century of a California-federal government relationship regarding the Clean Air Act that had served all parties well.

John Boesel, the president and CEO of clean transportation industry group CALSTART, called the Senate action radical.

“This vote upends decades of policy that has successfully resulted in cleaner air and the growth of a robust clean transportation industry,” he said in a statement. “It is a brazen, yet futile, attempt to bring the clean transportation industry to a sudden halt. CALSTART will continue to partner with the states working to fill this gaping void left by today’s federal action.”

And the unusual use of the Congressional Review Act will likely lead to lawsuits from California and at least some of the states that follow it to “protect their authority,” Balik, of Evergreen Action, said.

“But that’s going to take some time to play out,” he said. “In the meantime, the whole marketplace has been plunged into unnecessary chaos. Part of what the industry always says is, ‘We need certainty.’ And if anything, right now, we have the exact opposite thanks to what Congress is doing.”

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education must temporarily reinstate the hundreds of employees laid off earlier this year and cannot follow through on an executive order from President Donald Trump seeking to dismantle the agency, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled Thursday. 

The ruling stems from a pair of March lawsuits — one from a slew of Democratic attorneys general, another from a coalition of advocacy and labor groups — and blocks three Trump initiatives, marking a major blow to the president’s education agenda as his administration seeks to dramatically reshape the federal role in education.

The lawsuits challenge some of the administration’s most consequential education initiatives so far: a reduction in force effort at the agency that gutted more than 1,300 employees, Trump’s executive order calling on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department and Trump’s proposal to rehouse the student loan portfolio in the Small Business Administration and special education services in the Department of Health and Human Services.

“A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,” U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun wrote in his 88-page memorandum and order granting a preliminary injunction.

“This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself,” wrote Joun, whom former President Joe Biden appointed.

Joun’s preliminary injunction took effect immediately and will remain until the merits of the consolidated case are decided.

A department spokesperson said the administration would immediately appeal the ruling. The agency has since filed an appeal.

Win for Democratic states

One of the cases comes from a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

The other lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts.

The department’s reduction in force plan prompted concerns from education advocates and leaders over how the agency would be able to carry out its core responsibilities after roughly halving its workforce, including major cuts to key units including the Office of Federal Student Aid, Office for Civil Rights and the Institute of Education Sciences.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, celebrated the ruling in a Thursday statement.

“Today, the court rightly rejected one of the administration’s very first illegal, and consequential, acts: abolishing the federal role in education,” Weingarten said.

“This decision is a first step to reverse this war on knowledge and the undermining of broad-based opportunity. For America to build a brighter future, we must all take more responsibility, not less, for the success of our children.”

Joun’s order also bars the agency from carrying out the president’s directive to transfer the student loan portfolio and special education services out of the agency.

Trump announced the proposal, which had no accompanying executive order, at the opening of an Oval Office appearance with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The department had told States Newsroom earlier this week that it had nothing new to share at this time regarding the proposed transfer. 

Judge ‘dramatically overstepped’

Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the department, said the agency “will immediately challenge this on an emergency basis.”

“Once again, a far-left Judge has dramatically overstepped his authority, based on a complaint from biased plaintiffs, and issued an injunction against the obviously lawful efforts to make the Department of Education more efficient and functional for the American people,” she said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

“President Trump and the Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education clearly have the authority to make decisions about agency reorganization efforts, not an unelected Judge with a political axe to grind. This ruling is not in the best interest of American students or families.”

Thursday’s ruling came just a day after McMahon took a grilling from U.S. House Democrats over the drastic cuts and proposed changes at her department during a hearing in a panel of the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations.

McMahon appeared before the lawmakers to outline Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request, which calls for $12 billion in spending cuts at the department.

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House early Thursday approved the “big, beautiful bill” that Republican leaders spent months negotiating with centrists and far-right members of the party — two distinct factions that hold vastly different policy goals — over intense opposition from Democrats.

The 215-214 vote ships the package to the Senate, where GOP lawmakers are expected to rewrite much of it, before sending it back across the Capitol for final approval, a process likely to stretch through the summer.

President Donald Trump, who said he backed the House version, would then need to sign the legislation, which under the complicated process being used by Republicans can pass with just a majority vote in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Trump called on the Senate to pass the legislation as quickly as possible, writing in a social media post that “(t)here is no time to waste” and that the bill is “arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”

Speaker Mike Johnson said minutes before the vote that he expects lawmakers to give the measure final approval before the Fourth of July.

“Now, look, we’re accomplishing a big thing here today, but we know this isn’t the end of the road just yet,” Johnson, R-La., said. “We’ve been working closely with Leader (John) Thune and our Senate colleagues, the Senate Republicans, to get this done and delivered to the president’s desk by our Independence Day. That’s July 4. Today proves that we can do that, and we will do that.”

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., argued against the legislation, saying it “undermines reproductive freedom, undermines the progress that we have made in combating the climate crisis, undermines gun safety, undermines the rule of law and the independence of the federal judiciary. It even undermines the ability of hard-working and law-abiding immigrant families to provide remittances to their loved ones, who may just happen to live abroad.”

Jeffries raised concerns with how the proposals in the bill would impact the economy and the federal government’s financial stability.

“Costs aren’t going down. They’re going up. Inflation is out of control. Insurance rates remain stubbornly high,” Jeffries said. “Our Moody’s rating, our credit rating, has been downgraded, and you’ve got people losing confidence in this economy. Republicans are crashing this economy in real time and driving us toward a recession.”

Ohio’s Warren Davidson and Kentucky’s Thomas Massie were the only Republicans to vote against passing the bill, which members debated throughout the night prior to the vote just after daylight in the nation’s capital. All Democrats, who dubbed it “one big ugly bill,” were opposed. Maryland GOP Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, voted “present.”

Massie spoke against the bill overnight, calling it “a debt bomb ticking.”

“I’d love to stand here and tell the American people: We can cut your taxes and we can increase spending, and everything’s going to be just fine. But I can’t do that because I’m here to deliver a dose of reality,” Massie said. “This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before? How do you bind a future Congress to these promises?”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing later in the day that Trump wants Davidson and Massie to face primary challenges next year during the midterm elections.

“I believe he does,” Leavitt said. “And I don’t think he likes to see grandstanders in Congress.” 

In the works for weeks

The 1,116-page package combines 11 bills that GOP lawmakers debated and reported out of committee during the last several weeks.

The legislation would:

• Extend the 2017 tax law, including tax cuts for businesses and individuals;
• Bolster spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars;
• Rework energy permitting;
• Restructure higher education aid such as student loans and Pell Grants;
• Shift some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program food aid program for low-income Americans to state governments; and
• Overhaul Medicaid, the nation’s program for health care for low-income people and some people with disabilities.

The bill would make deep cuts to Medicaid spending, reducing the program by $625 billion over 10 years under the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

The budget measure would also raise the debt limit by $4 trillion.

A new Congressional Budget Office analysis released late Tuesday showed the package tilted toward the wealthy, projecting it would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners.

Republicans hold especially thin majorities in the House and Senate, meaning that nearly every GOP lawmaker — ranging from centrists who barely won their general elections to far-right members who are more at risk of losing a primary challenge — needed to support the bill.

Balancing the demands of hundreds of lawmakers led to nearly constant talks during the last few days as Johnson struggled to secure the votes to pass the bill before his Memorial Day deadline.

Any deal Johnson made with far-right members of the party risked alienating centrist GOP lawmakers and vice versa.

An agreement finally came together Wednesday evening when GOP leaders released a 42-page amendment that made changes to various sections of the package, including the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, and Medicaid work requirements and nixed the potential sale of some public lands.

Tax cuts

House debate on the package fell largely along party lines, with Democrats contending it would benefit the wealthy at the expense of lower-income Americans, including millions who would lose access to Medicaid.

Republicans argued the legislation is necessary to avoid a tax hike at the end of the year, when the 2017 GOP law expires, and to curb government spending in the years ahead.

Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., said the tax section of the package would halt a tax increase for many that would have taken place after the vast majority of the provisions in that law expire at the end of this year.

“Working families, farmers and small businesses win with this bill,” Smith said. “We expand and make permanent the small business deduction and increase the child tax credit, the standard deduction and the death tax exemption.”

The legislation would increase the tax rate for colleges and universities with substantial endowments, which would match the corporate tax rate, he said.

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Richard Neal, ranking member on that tax-writing committee, said the legislation would lead the United States to “borrow $4 trillion and with interest payments over the next 10 years, $5 trillion, to justify a tax cut for the billionaire class.”

Neal said that the wealthy would see a greater benefit from the GOP tax provisions than working-class Americans.

“If you made a million dollars last year, you’re going to get $81,000 of tax relief. If you made less than $50,000 Guess what? Not quite so lucky,” Neal said. “But you know what? $1 a day goes a long way, because that’s where the numbers land.”

Neal said Democrats would have worked with Republicans to extend the 2017 tax cuts if the GOP had capped them for those making less than $400,000 a year, with people making more than that going back to the higher rate. 

Child tax credit

The child tax credit will increase to $2,500, up from the $2,000 enacted under the 2017 tax law. The refundability portion of the credit, or the amount parents could receive in a refund check after paying their tax liability, will remain capped but will increase with inflation by $100 annually. As of now, the amount a parent could receive back per child stands at $1,700.

While Republicans hailed the increase as a win for families, critics say it continues to leave out the poorest families as the refund amount is dependent on how much a parent earns. The credit phases in at 15 cents per income dollar, one child at a time.

“The Republican bill will leave out 17 million American children who are in families that don’t earn enough to receive the full child tax credit,” Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington said Wednesday in the House Committee on Rules. Her amendment to make the tax credit fully refundable was rejected.

On the House floor Thursday morning, DelBene criticized the bill as a “big, broken promise.”

SALT

Republicans from high-tax blue states declared victory on the increase in the SALT cap, or the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted from federal taxable income. After long, drawn-out disagreement, Republicans representing districts in California, New Jersey and New York secured a bump to $40,000, up from the $10,000 cap enacted under Trump’s 2017 tax law.

However, the cap comes with an income limit of $500,000, after which it phases down. Both the $40,000 cap and the $500,000 income threshold will increase annually at 1% until hitting a ceiling of $44,000 and $552,000.

Rep. Mike Lawler of New York said during debate that he “would never support a tax bill that did not adequately lift the cap on SALT.”

“This bill does that. It increases the cap on SALT by 300%,” Lawler said. “And I would remind my Democratic colleagues, when they had full control in Washington, they lifted the cap on SALT by exactly $0, zilch, zip, nada.”

Medicaid work requirements 

Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said his panel’s bill would ensure Medicaid coverage continued for low-income families, individuals who are disabled and seniors through new work requirements and other changes.

“This bill protects coverage for those individuals by ensuring ineligible recipients do not cut the line in front of our most vulnerable Americans,” Guthrie said. “The decision by left-leaning state governments to spend taxpayer dollars on people who are ineligible for the program is indefensible. Medicaid should not cover illegal immigrants, deceased or duplicative beneficiaries, or able-bodied adults without dependents who choose not to work.”

The policy change would require those who rely on the state-federal health program, and who are between the ages of 19 and 65, to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month.

The language has numerous exceptions, including for pregnant people, parents of dependent children, people who have complex medical conditions, tribal community members, those in the foster care system, people who were in foster care who are below the age of 26 and individuals released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others.

New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member on the committee that oversees major health care programs, said the Republican bill would not only cut funding for Medicaid, but also for Medicare, the program relied on by seniors and some younger people with disabilities.

“Republicans are stripping health care away from people by putting all sorts of burdensome and time-consuming road blocks in the way of people just trying to get by,” Pallone said. “The vast majority of people on Medicaid are already working. This is not about work. It’s about burying people in so much paperwork that they fall behind and lose their health coverage, and if someone loses their health coverage through Medicaid, this GOP tax scam also bans them from getting coverage through the ACA marketplace.”

While the GOP bill doesn’t directly address Medicare, he said, a federal budget law, known as the Pay-As-You-Go Act, would force spending cuts called sequestration to that health program.

“The Medicare cuts will lead to reduced access to care for seniors, longer wait times for appointments, and increased costs,” Pallone said.

States to share in food aid costs

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., pressed for support for his piece of the legislation, saying changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, are needed.

“SNAP is the only state-administered welfare program that does not have a cost-share component, and while the federal government funds 100% of the benefit, states are tasked with operating it,” Thompson said. “The only problem: They aren’t operating it well.”

He also cheered several of the package’s tax provisions, saying they would benefit farmers.

“The one big, beautiful bill makes permanent and expands the Trump tax cuts. It also prevents the death tax from hitting over 2 million family farms,” Thompson said. “It locks in the small business deduction, helping 98% of American farms stay afloat.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Angie Craig, ranking member on the panel, wrote in a statement that the proposed changes would “make America hungrier, poorer and sicker.”

“At a time when grocery prices are going up and retirement accounts are going down, we must protect the basic needs programs that help people afford food and health care,” Craig wrote. “As a mother and someone who needed food assistance at periods in my own childhood, I condemn this attempt to snatch food off our children’s plates to fund tax breaks for large corporations.”

Border security, air traffic control, EV fees

House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves, R-Mo., said his piece of the package would combine “critical investments in border security, national defense and modernization of America’s air traffic control system, while eliminating wasteful spending and other deficit reduction measures.”

“Specifically, this bill addresses long overdue needs in the United States Coast Guard, which for over two decades has received less than half of the capital investment necessary to effectively carry out its critical missions,” Graves said.

The transportation section of the package, he said, includes $21 billion for the Coast Guard and $12.5 billion to modernize the air traffic control systems while establishing a $250 annual fee for electric vehicles and a $100 annual fee for hybrid vehicles that would go toward the Highway Trust Fund. That account has traditionally been funded through a gas tax. 

Washington Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen, ranking member on the transportation panel, said he wanted “to continue historic funding for transportation, infrastructure, and stronger and healthier communities.”

“Unfortunately, this reconciliation package leaves very little room for those investments,”  Larsen said.

“This bill causes immediate harm by yanking money from locally selected projects that our constituents in Republican and Democratic districts alike are counting on,” he added. “And for what? To help pay for the tax cuts for the richest Americans and largest and largest corporations.”

Student loan overhaul, medical research

House Education and Workforce Committee ranking member Bobby Scott, D-Va., urged opposition to what he called the “big, bad billionaires bill,” saying it would lead to a massive reshaping of higher education aid.

“The bill not only can increase the deficit, it has 4 million students who will lose their Pell Grants, 18 million children could potentially lose their free school lunch, 13.7 million people are set to lose their health care and everybody loses when the National Institutes of Health research is cut,” Scott said.

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., said his portion of the legislation would “generate over $20 billion in savings and new revenue for the federal government, primarily by direct royalty and lease fees from the sale of oil, gas, timber and mine resources, while curbing wasteful spending.”

“Our title reinstates onshore and offshore oil and gas lease sales, holds annual geothermal lease sales and ensures a fair process for critical mineral development nationwide,” Westerman said. “We’ve also directed the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to utilize long-term timber sale contracts.”

The Trump administration released a Statement of Administration Policy on Wednesday urging GOP lawmakers to approve the legislation, when it still appeared several members of the party might delay or even block the bill in the House. 

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act reflects the shared priorities of both Congress and the Administration,” the SAP states. “Therefore, the House of Representatives should immediately pass this bill to show the American people that they are serious about ‘promises made, promises kept.’

“President Trump is committed to keeping his promises, and failure to pass this bill would be the ultimate betrayal.”

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifies at a hearing of the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies on May 21, 2025. (Screenshot from committee livestream)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon took heat from U.S. House Democrats on Wednesday over the drastic cuts and proposed changes at her federal agency in the months since President Donald Trump took office.

Democrats on a panel within the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations expressed dissatisfaction with McMahon’s education initiatives so far, as well as Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request released earlier this month. The request calls for $12 billion in spending cuts at the department.

McMahon appeared before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies to outline the budget request as part of the panel’s work to write the bill to fund the department for the coming fiscal year.

McMahon told the panel that the department aims to “shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states — who best know their local needs — to manage education in this country.”

“We’ve reduced a department that was overstaffed by thousands of positions, cut old contracts that were enriching private parties at taxpayer expense, suspended grants for illegal (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs and now are putting forward a budget request that reduces department funding by more than 15%,” she said.

Trump and his administration have sought to dramatically reshape the federal role in education, including an executive order calling on McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department, the gutting of more than 1,300 employees at the agency, threats to revoke funds for schools that use DEI practices and a crackdown on “woke” higher education.

‘Disdain for public education’

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the full panel and the subcommittee, called McMahon’s actions at the department “lawless,” adding that they “reek of disdain for public education” and are “hurting the most vulnerable in our nation.” 

“Under your leadership of the department, hundreds of millions of dollars have been frozen, and entire programs have been terminated,” the Connecticut Democrat said. “Funding for vital research, protection of students’ civil rights and programs that support the recruitment and professional development of effective educators have been terminated.”

DeLauro also lambasted the budget’s proposal to consolidate 18 grant programs for K-12 education and replace them with a $2 billion formula grant that would give states spending flexibility.

A White House document summarizing major changes in the budget request said the consolidation would cut spending by more than $4.5 billion, a point DeLauro emphasized.

“Yet at the same time, you propose that we provide $4.5 billion less to educate our nation’s children overall,” she said. “A block grant is a cut — all of my colleagues here know that the states cannot afford to pick up the slack.”

In another exchange in the lengthy hearing, McMahon pushed back against New Jersey Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman’s assertion that the department’s Office for Civil Rights is “being decimated.” The unit has seen significant staffing cuts as part of the department’s reduction in force effort along with the closure of several regional offices.

“Well, it isn’t being decimated,” McMahon said. “We have reduced the size of it, however, we are taking on a backlog of cases that were left over from the Biden administration and we’re working through those.”

Watson Coleman proceeded to press McMahon on why the department would reduce its resources if the agency has a backlog in addition to confronting cases that will come before it now. 

“Because we are working more efficiently in the department,” McMahon replied.

Prioritizing school choice

Meanwhile, Republicans focused largely on school choice initiatives and how McMahon and the department are prioritizing those efforts.  

The term “school choice” applies to alternative programs to a student’s assigned public school. Proponents say school choice programs are necessary for parents dissatisfied with their local public schools, though critics argue these efforts drain critical funds from school districts.

Rep. Robert Aderholt, chair of the subcommittee, said “too many schools, encouraged and facilitated by federal funding, have let things like social justice advocacy and divisive issues crowd out the focus on teaching students and the core subjects.”

“Thankfully, some states have pursued choice options for students whose traditional public schools have not served them well, including through charter schools,” the Alabama Republican said.

McMahon said increasing school choice was one of her priorities as secretary and highlighted the budget’s proposed increase of $60 million to expand the number of charter schools in the country, according to the budget request.

“The president absolutely believes, as do I, that the more choice that parents have, the better off the students are, and we’ve seen that repeatedly in different states,” she said. 

U.S. House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, R-Md., center, speaks to reporters on Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at the U.S. Capitol. From left are Republicans Keith Self of Texas, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Chip Roy of Texas. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republican leaders released changes to their “one big beautiful bill” late Wednesday after marathon negotiations with conservatives demanding deeper cuts to safety net programs, teeing up debate and a final vote likely sometime Thursday.

The alterations, which will have to be adopted later, moved up implementation of work requirements for Medicaid by at least a couple of years and tossed out plans to sell some public lands. The new language also tightened the timeline for clean energy tax breaks and raised the ceiling for taxpayers who deduct state and local taxes.

The package of adjustments — the manager’s amendment — was incorporated into the larger reconciliation bill, which was approved by the House Rules Committee just before 11 p.m. Eastern on an 8-4 party-line vote. Far-right holdout Rep. Chip Roy of Texas was absent.

Next, the package must pass a procedural vote on the House floor before lawmakers can debate and take a final vote.

With a razor-thin margin, House Speaker Mike Johnson can only lose a handful of members on each vote. Democrats are expected to uniformly vote “no” in the procedural and final votes.

Medicaid

Republicans moved up implementation of work requirements for Medicaid enrollees from taking effect after January 1, 2029 to no later than December 31, 2026. That could mean some states will make the changes before next year’s midterm elections.

The provision would require those who rely on the state-federal health program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities, who are between the ages of 19 and 65, to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month.

The language has numerous exceptions, including for pregnant people, parents of dependent children, people who have complex medical conditions, tribal community members, people in the foster system, people who were in the foster system who are below the age of 26 and people released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others.

The GOP changes also would bar Medicaid from covering gender transition procedures for anyone in the program. The bill previously barred that type of treatment for anyone below the age of 18.

Clean energy tax credits

Republicans also tightened the timeline on the termination of clean energy tax credits enacted under President Joe Biden. Hardliners focused on reducing the deficit had demanded a quicker phase-out for the credits.

The new language would accelerate phase-outs for clean energy investment tax credits to 2028, up from 2031, with special carve-outs for nuclear facilities. Companies that break ground on new facilities 60 days after the bill is enacted, if passed, will not qualify for the tax credits. The same applies to any facility placed into service after 2028.

State and local taxes

A separate contingent of Republican holdouts reached a deal with Johnson to raise the SALT cap to $40,000, up from the $10,000 lid enacted under the 2017 tax law. The SALT cap  — the amount of state and local taxes constituents can deduct from federal taxable income — is a top issue for Republicans who represent districts in high-tax blue states, including California, New Jersey and New York.

The amount of SALT taxpayers can deduct decreases for those making more than $500,000 annually. The SALT cap and the income cut-off will increase by 1% each year from 2027 until 2033.

Public lands sale

The amendment removed language that would have allowed the sale of public lands in Nevada and Utah.

The National Wildlife Federation credited Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke with removing the provision.

“Thank you to Rep. Ryan Zinke and his colleagues who listened to their constituents and worked with House leaders to eliminate the provision from the budget reconciliation bill,” NWF Associate Vice President for Public Lands David Wilms said in a statement. “We urge all members of Congress to refrain from similar attacks on America’s public lands.”

Jessica Turner, president of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, wrote in a statement that “Congress avoided setting a dangerous precedent that lands can be sold anytime the U.S. Treasury needs a budget ‘pay-for’ and threatening outdoor recreation businesses and rural communities alike that need certainty, access, and long-term infrastructure.”

The Center for Biological Diversity’s Great Basin Director Patrick Donnelly wrote in a separate statement that it was “appalling that GOP leaders tried to get away with auctioning off some of our country’s most beautiful landscapes to fund tax cuts for billionaires and make developers richer. This is Gilded Age-level stuff, and I hope people remember it the next time Republicans try to pretend they care about public lands.”

A separate provision in the amendment appeared to narrow the federal authorizations energy projects could bypass by paying a $10 million fee. The section had been attacked by environmental groups as a “pay-to-play” for energy companies.

White House meeting

The changes come after Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, and far-right holdouts huddled with President Donald Trump at the White House Wednesday afternoon.

Johnson, speaking to reporters at the Capitol following the meeting, said that lawmakers had “a good discussion” and that he believes the GOP is “in a very good place.”

“I think that all of our colleagues here will really like this final product, and I think we’re going to move forward,” Johnson said.

Johnson said members of the Freedom Caucus, who previously argued the legislation doesn’t go far enough to restructure Medicaid and reduce federal spending, may end up supporting the bill, in part because Trump plans to address their other concerns through unilateral actions.

“You will see how all this is resolved. But I think we can resolve their concerns and it’ll be probably some combination of work by the president in these areas as well as here in Congress,” Johnson said. “So there may be executive orders related to some of these issues in the near future.

“And, you know, this is a commitment the president has made. He wants to go after fraud, waste and abuse.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt released a written statement saying the “meeting was productive and moved the ball in the right direction.

“The President reiterated how critical it is for the country to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill as quickly as possible.”

Complex process

Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship.

Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.

Republicans are using the package to 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 on Medicaid.

A new Congressional Budget Office analysis released late Tuesday projected the massive reconciliation package would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners.

Freedom Caucus

Earlier Wednesday, members of the Freedom Caucus told reporters following a different meeting with Johnson that they believed negotiations were moving in the right direction, but were skeptical of trying to approve the entire package this week.

Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the group, said they wanted the legislation to go further in terms of addressing “waste, fraud and abuse” within Medicaid, though he declined to elaborate.

The Medicaid proposals in the version of the bill prior to the negotiated changes would cut $625 billion in federal spending during the next decade, under a CBO analysis. Democrats have warned the result would be millions of vulnerable people losing access to the health program for lower income people and some people with disabilities.

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy said during that same impromptu press conference that leadership and members of the Freedom Caucus had made “significant progress” toward a final agreement.

“We’re trying to deliver so that the people who are actually out there working hard can actually get the health care that they want to get, that they can get, and get it the best way possible,” Roy said. “That’s what this is all about; changing a broken system, making sure we’re saving taxpayer dollars and being able to provide a better environment for people to be able to thrive.”

Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Scott Perry, who used to chair the Freedom Caucus, said that holding a House vote before Memorial Day was a made-up timeline and that if negotiations needed to last longer, they should.

“This is a completely arbitrary deadline set by people here to force people into a corner to make bad decisions,” Perry said. “It’s more important to get this right, to get it correct, than to get it fast. We are sitting at the table to do that.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

Detainees board a plane chartered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at King County International Airport on April 15, 2025 in Seattle, Washington. (Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Boston Wednesday found the Trump administration violated his preliminary injunction barring third-country removals of migrants without due process, after immigration lawyers say their clients were placed on deportation flights to South Sudan.

“It was impossible for these people to have a meaningful opportunity to object to their transfer to South Sudan,” U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy said. “The government’s actions in this case are unquestionably violative of this court’s order.”

Murphy said he will narrowly tailor a remedy to the violation of his April order. He said the Trump administration must give proper due process to the eight men who were placed on deportation flights on Tuesday and given less than 24 hours to challenge their removal to South Sudan.

South Sudan, in East Africa, is violence-ridden and the U.S. State Department advises against travel there.

Department of Justice attorneys would not confirm where the plane landed, but according to flight tracking data reviewed by the New York Times, there is a chartered plane owned by a company used in the past for deportations that has landed in the East African nation of Djibouti.

Murphy did not detail what contempt charges would look like, but asked Department of Justice attorneys for a list of names of people involved in the flights for potential consequences.

The hearing in Massachusetts is one of several clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary branch over the issue of due process in immigration enforcement, as the Trump administration aims to enact mass deportations.

The White House in a statement attacked Murphy as a “far-left activist judge” trying to protect migrants with criminal convictions. The list of individuals the White House said were on the flight were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, South Sudan, Burma and Vietnam.

Flight originated in Texas

An hour before Wednesday’s hearing, top Department of Homeland Security officials at a press conference defended the decision, but declined to confirm if the migrants were sent to South Sudan and argued the country was not their “final destination.”

However, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Todd Lyons said that South Sudan had agreed to take the men.

“We conducted a deportation flight from Texas to remove some of the most barbaric violent individuals illegally in the United States,” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said at the press event.

McLaughlin said that the men were still in DHS custody.

Murphy, appointed by former President Joe Biden, has not ordered the Trump administration to return any of the men. At the hearing, he did question a top ICE official in Texas, Marcos Charles, and directed him to find out if it were possible to hold credible fear interviews for the men instead of requiring they be returned to the U.S.

Immigration attorneys who last night had asked for the emergency hearing pushed for the immigrants to be brought back to the U.S.

DOJ attorney Drew Ensign disagreed and said that any remedy from Murphy should be narrowly tailored and that ordering the men to be returned would be “too broad.”

Ensign also said the Trump administration’s position is that 24 hours is enough time for an immigrant to challenge their removal to a country that is not their home.

Trina Realmuto, of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, argued 30 days is preferable, because many of those removed do not have legal representation and need time to find an attorney and determine if they could face possible harm in another country.

Murphy said that he would clarify how much time is appropriate. He directed DOJ attorneys to make sure that everyone involved in third-country removals, from pilots to immigration officers, to be aware of his order and the possible criminal contempt charges if it’s not followed.

On late Tuesday, in an emergency hearing, Murphy ordered the government to keep the eight migrants in DHS custody until more details could be revealed in Wednesday’s hearing to determine if his April order was violated.

In that earlier order, Murphy barred the Trump administration from removing individuals from a country that is not their home country without giving them time to raise any concerns that they might face harm in the country they would be removed to.

Repeated conflicts between administration and judges

Sending migrants to South Sudan would bring the same concerns as sending them to Libya, another third country with a history of clashes.

The Trump administration extended Temporary Protection Status to nationals of South Sudan for six months to remain in the U.S., meaning those immigrants were granted work permits and deportation protections because their home country was deemed too dangerous to return to. 

In early May, Murphy warned Trump officials that any deportations to a third country such as Libya and Saudi Arabia — countries with human rights violations that the Trump administration was considering for deportations — would have clearly violated his April preliminary injunction. 

It’s not the first conflict between federal judges and the Trump administration.

A federal judge in Maryland grilled Department of Justice lawyers and accused the administration of stonewalling information on its efforts to return a wrongly deported man from El Salvador. Another federal judge in Maryland ordered the return of a separate wrongly deported man to an El Salvador prison, an order that the DOJ is currently appealing.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia ordered the administration to return deportation planes to the U.S. carrying men removed under the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798, but the planes landed in El Salvador to take the migrants to the notorious prison CECOT. The judge threatened possible contempt against the Trump administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday again rejected a request from the Trump administration to remove its block on using the Alien Enemies Act over concerns about due process.

The Trump administration in March invoked the Alien Enemies Act to apply to Venezuelans 14 and older with suspected gang ties to rapidly deport them, raising concerns about a lack of due process. 

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on May 7, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — As House Republicans continue to wrangle over the “one big beautiful bill,” a new analysis released late Tuesday projects the massive reconciliation package would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the lowest-earning households in the United States would see incomes decrease 2% in 2027, moving to a 4% loss in 2033, as a result of spending cuts to nutrition assistance and Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income individuals and those with disabilities.

The CBO projects resources would meanwhile increase by 4% for the highest-earning Americans in 2027, moving down to a 2% increase by 2033, according to the latest analysis.

The CBO score could change as hardline conservatives press Republican leadership for increased spending cuts to federal safety net programs as a way to pay for, at least in part, the extension and expansion of 2017 tax cuts that come with a price tag of $3.8 trillion.

Rep. Brendan Boyle, ranking member on the House Committee on the Budget, said in a statement late Tuesday that “Donald Trump and House Republicans are selling out the middle class to make the ultra-rich even richer.”

“This is what Republicans are fighting for—lining the pockets of their billionaire donors while children go hungry and families get kicked off their health care,” said the Pennsylvania Democrat.

The bill as written now would slash roughly $800 billion from Medicaid and Affordable Care Act provisions, and $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Rules — the final stop for the 1,116-page package bill before it reaches a House floor vote — have been debating the measure since 1 a.m. Eastern Wednesday, while House Speaker Mike Johnson huddled separately with far-right deficit hawks.

Far-right members of the House Freedom Caucus remained skeptical the bill could reach the House floor by Johnson’s goal of Wednesday.

The Louisiana Republican leader also faces opposition from GOP lawmakers who represent high-tax blue states who want an even higher ceiling for the amount of state and local taxes, or SALT, their constituents can deduct from federal taxable income.

Lifting the ceiling, which lawmakers already proposed boosting from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples filing jointly, will increase the cost of the bill.

Johnson needs nearly every GOP lawmaker to support the bill once it hits the floor as House Republicans have an extremely thin 220-213 majority.

President Donald Trump arrives with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., for a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Republicans who have yet to rally behind the party’s “big, beautiful bill” huddled in the speaker’s office Tuesday as different factions tried to hash out agreement on taxes, Medicaid and a few other outstanding issues.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters before those meetings began there were “a number of loose ends to tie up” with deficit hawks and members from high-tax states, who are pressing to raise the state and local tax deduction, also known as SALT.

“We got some hours ahead of us to work this out, and I’m very confident we will,” Johnson said. “I’m going to have a series of meetings that will begin right now in my office to try to tie up the final loose ends. This is a 1,100-page piece of legislation. We’re down to a few provisions so we are very confident, very optimistic we can get this done and stay on our timetable.”

Johnson hopes to pass the legislation this week, though he didn’t appear to have the votes as of Tuesday afternoon.

Trump pays a House call

The smaller meetings followed a closed-door huddle between all the chamber’s GOP lawmakers and President Donald Trump earlier in the day that didn’t quite have the intended effect of immediately convincing holdouts to vote for the bill.

Trump, however, appeared to declare victory before leaving the Capitol.

“I think we have unbelievable unity. I think we’re going to get everything we want,” Trump said after the morning meeting. “And I think we’re going to have a great victory.”

House Republicans have an extremely thin 220-213 majority, requiring nearly every GOP lawmaker to support the 1,116-page package in order for it to reach the Senate.

Getting SALT-y

The reconciliation bill currently proposes lifting the SALT cap from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples filing jointly, with a phase-down for those earning $400,000 or more, but that’s not enough for Republicans from states most impacted by the aspect of tax law.

New York Republican Rep. Nick LaLota told reporters in the early afternoon that he would likely lose reelection if he can’t secure a better SALT agreement than what was on the table.

“If I do a bad deal, I would expect my constituents to throw me out,” LaLota said. “If I did a deal at $30,000, my own mother wouldn’t vote for me.”

LaLota said Republicans leaders should prioritize a deal that benefits swing voters to avoid the party losing centrist members and possibly the House majority in the 2026 midterms.

“If we win that one issue, they’ll have a much easier November of 2026. And thus we’ll be able to keep the House and do other fiscally responsible things for the next couple of cycles here, if we get this one issue right,” LaLota said. “Conversely, you get this issue wrong — you vote for a bad bill and you keep the cap low — those folks are getting thrown out of office, we lose the majority, and then we have an open border, then we have an impeached president, and then we have all the other things that America voted against.”

LaLota said later Tuesday, after GOP leaders proposed different SALT cap numbers, that there was still “no accepted deal, yet the parties are talking a little more with an understanding of each other’s position.”

“Leadership understands better what our pain threshold is,” LaLota said. “We clearly rejected the $30,000 number that’s in the Ways and Means bill.” 

He declined to say if the SALT Caucus was prepping a counteroffer for leadership, but said that staff were conducting “some research on some of the mixes of income caps and what SALT cap there would be and how much that would be valued at relative to the entire $4 trillion package.”

‘Bad faith negotiation’

Rep. Mike Lawler, a staunch supporter of raising the SALT cap for his constituents north of New York City, would not comment to reporters outside the speaker’s office about a specific dollar amount but said there’s an “improved offer” on the table.

“We’re waiting on more details. We’ll have more to say later,” Lawler said.

Speaking to Fox News in the hallway, he said, “I’m not going to sacrifice my constituents and throw them under the bus in a bad faith negotiation, which is what this has been by leadership and Jason Smith,” he said referring to the chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

“We need to come to an agreement. We need to provide real and lasting tax relief, and that’s what I’m fighting for, for my constituents. I respect the president … but I’ll respectfully disagree,” Lawler said.

Trump urged House Republicans Tuesday morning that raising the SALT cap benefits Democratic governors.

Conservatives still unhappy

Complicating negotiations, some far-right House Republicans remain opposed to the bill, saying it does not go far enough.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who did not support the bill during a committee vote Sunday night, told States Newsroom Tuesday afternoon that his “concerns and problems still exist.”

Roy argues the massive reconciliation deal does not reduce deficit spending enough, particularly with respect to Medicaid and clean energy tax credits.

When asked whether lawmakers were approaching an agreement, Roy said “Not sure. We’re still talking. We’ve had literally like five meetings today already.”

Thune predictions

The House passing the package this week would only be one of many steps in the long, winding process.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon, just after Johnson spoke during a closed-door lunch, that changes to the package are expected in the upper chamber.

Thune said one of the major questions for GOP senators is whether the legislation holds “sufficient spending reforms to get us on a more sustainable fiscal path.”

“I think most of our members are in favor of a lot of the tax policy and particularly those portions of the tax policy that are stimulative, that are pro-growth, that will create greater growth in the economy,” Thune said. “But when it comes to the spending side of the equation: This is a unique moment in time and in history where we have the House and the Senate and the White House, and an opportunity to do something meaningful about government spending.”

Thune said that GOP senators would likely make “tweaks” to the tax provisions once the House sends over a package, especially around how long certain tax policy lasts.

“They have cliffs and some shorter-term timeframes when it comes to some of the tax policies,” Thune said. “We believe that permanence is the way to create economic certainty and thereby attract and incentive capital investment in this country that creates those good-paying jobs, and gets our economy growing and expanding, and generates more government revenue.”

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, speaks at a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats on Tuesday blasted the assault charges the Trump administration is pursuing against New Jersey U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver following a clash with law enforcement earlier this month outside an immigration detention center in Newark.

Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus, Democratic Women’s Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus defended McIver at a press conference attended by dozens of Democrats outside of the U.S. Capitol, arguing that the New Jersey Democrat was simply doing her job in conducting oversight of the facility.

In a criminal complaint, McIver is charged with two counts of “assaulting, resisting, and impeding certain officers or employees,” with one charge involving a Homeland Security Investigations special agent and another surrounding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation officer.

The charges are tied to McIver’s May 9 visit to the detention center, where she was accompanied by fellow New Jersey Democrats — Reps. Rob Menendez and Bonnie Watson Coleman. The lawmakers had said they wanted to inspect the detention center.

Federal authorities say McIver assaulted two officers as she tried to prevent the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka. Alina Habba, acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, announced Monday that she would be dropping a trespassing charge against Baraka stemming from the same standoff.

‘Reprehensible political stunt’

At the Capitol press conference, Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, described the charges as a “reprehensible political stunt.”

The New York Democrat said “members of Congress have every right to conduct oversight at ICE facilities and any other federal agency, and when egregious, undeniable and vicious violations of the law and people’s freedoms are taking place, we, they, in fact, have an obligation to do so.”

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker said McIver, Menendez and Watson Coleman “stood their ground, used their voice and did their job.”

“They actually are obeying the Constitution. They are standing up to give checks and balances to this administration at a time that the Republicans in control of the House and the Senate are laying down and completely abrogating their duties to check and balance and give oversight to the president,” he added.

New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone also condemned the charges on Tuesday, calling the Justice Department’s actions “outrageous.”

Ahead of a Tuesday hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on “threats to ICE operations,” Pallone led several other New Jersey Democrats in writing to the panel’s chair, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, and ranking member, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, to express their support for the three lawmakers’ oversight visit to the detention center.

The group also condemned what they see as efforts from the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “politicize and suppress lawful Congressional oversight through acts of intimidation and threats of legal action against our colleagues.”

‘Baseless charges’

Rep. Greg Casar, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the Department of Justice “filing baseless charges against a member of Congress for simply doing her job should send a chill down the spine of every American.”

The Texas Democrat said the caucus held a meeting just before the press conference where they decided that they are “just about to go and do a lot more oversight visits at ICE facilities.”

He said the members of the caucus recognized at the meeting that President Trump “doesn’t want us conducting oversight at ICE facilities like these brave members of Congress were doing — he wants to intimidate us out of doing that.” 

U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum testifies before a House Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

Just after President Donald Trump rallied U.S. House Republicans to pass a giant legislative package containing most of his domestic policy goals Tuesday, members of both parties on a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum they would likely provide his department more funding than Trump requested.

Even as Republicans professed a deference to Trump — with the subcommittee’s chairman calling him “the boss” — they also reaffirmed Congress’ power to direct spending, winning a promise from Burgum to spend congressionally appropriated money for its intended purpose.

Republicans and Democrats on the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee raised concerns with Burgum about proposed deep cuts in the administration’s “skinny budget” request to the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Education and other Interior Department programs.

“The administration proposed some deep funding cuts that we will likely not see eye-to-eye (on), especially when it comes to Indian programs and the operations of our national parks,” subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, said.

The subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Maine’s Chellie Pingree, was more blunt in her objection to the budget request, saying she “wholeheartedly” opposed it.

“Secretary Burgum, the document we’re here to discuss today is more than just a budget,” she said. “It’s a blueprint for dismantling the very mission of the Department of Interior, making it impossible to protect our natural resources and iconic national parks or uphold our commitments to tribal communities now and for future generations.”

In his opening statement, Burgum highlighted efforts by the administration to increase oil and gas development, which he said would increase federal revenues from the department.

Burgum rejects impoundment

The panel’s hearing started late as Republican members were delayed listening to Trump address their conference’s weekly meeting.

“I want to apologize for the half-hour late start; we were listening to the boss over at conference,” Simpson said, referring to Trump’s appearance at the House Republican Conference meeting.

But, he continued, the panel would likely not accept the president’s recommendation to reduce the department’s budget by 30%, and he used his first question to put Burgum on the record about the administration’s duty to spend congressionally appropriated funds.

“If Congress chooses to provide discretionary appropriations for the agency that are at levels above the president’s budget request, how would you handle that?” Simpson asked. “In other words, would you spend the amounts provided in an enacted bill and for the specific programs that Congress identifies?”

“Yes,” Burgum responded. “That would be the law.”

While Congress has the constitutional authority to make federal spending decisions, spending hawks within the administration, including budget chief Russell Vought, have broached the idea of “impounding” money that Congress has directed. The legality of the concept is untested.

Burgum’s response to Simpson rejected the use of impoundment, but Pingree noted that his department has still been unable to access appropriations due to delays at the Office of Management and Budget, which Vought oversees.

‘Congress has the power of the purse’

The continuing resolution that Trump signed in March included a provision that the Interior Department would have funds available within 60 days, she said. That deadline has passed but the money had not yet been apportioned, threatening job losses in Maine and other states, she said.

Pingree asked Burgum if he was “pushing the OMB to appropriate your department’s funding.”

Burgum said he was.

“Okay, pushing is good,” she said. “So just from my perspective, if you don’t get this funding, then that is impoundment. It is breaking the law. And I think perhaps on both sides of the aisle, we’re feeling very frustrated this administration is not expeditiously appropriating what we funded.

“Congress has the power of the purse,” she continued. “We meet in this committee, and we do an incredible amount of work negotiating back and forth on both sides of the aisle to arrive at these numbers and to figure out what should be done. And to have this administration just wantonly disregard what we have done, and to worry about having to do that in the next, 2026, budget, I would ask, you know what, why do committees meet? Why do we do the work that we’re doing if, in fact, we can’t count on the OMB?”

Cut in spending on Park Service

The president’s budget request included a $900 million decrease in spending for the National Park Service, which is part of the Interior Department. The administration proposed turning some NPS assets over to the states to manage as a way to reduce expenses.

Asked by Simpson about that idea, Burgum said no one was considering removing any of the 64 “crown jewel” national parks, but that some of the more than 400 other NPS sites could be managed by state or local authorities. Those sites may include historic battlefields or presidential birthplaces, he said.

“There’s, I think, zero intention of transferring any actual national parks,” he said. “I mean, the 64 crown jewels that we have, there’s zero thought about that.”

Full committee Chairman Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, noted that Burgum had taken the 64 large parks off the table, but was supportive of transferring smaller sites. He urged Burgum to look not just at states but at tribal governments.

“Look at the Chickasaw National Recreational Area sometime,” Cole, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, said. “I guarantee you, we’d manage it better. And that’s not to say the federal government does a bad job. They don’t, but we would put more resources into it.”

Tribal education

Members also questioned Burgum on the administration’s proposed $187 million decrease for the Bureau of Indian Education construction.

Burgum said his team was trying to understand the challenges of BIE facilities and noted that some were in need of maintenance.

But he said that his experience as North Dakota governor showed him that poor outcomes at BIE were not necessarily related to funding.

“It’s not always correlated between the more money you spend, the better outcomes you get,” he said.

Cole said he agreed with that idea, but said funding was also a statement of priorities.

“But I also think that kids have to have a good place to learn,” he said. “And sometimes that’s an expression of whether or not you care about them very much. And I’ve been to some excellent BIE schools… but I’ve been to some places I wouldn’t send my kid to simply because the resources aren’t there and haven’t ever been there.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem Tuesday was grilled by senators on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about funding estimates for a barrier along the southern border, as well as concerns about the Trump administration’s adherence to due process in immigration enforcement.

Noem was sharply criticized by Democrats for her answers to questions about habeas corpus, which they said she did not define correctly. “Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country,” Noem said before she was cut off by Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, who had asked her for a definition.

“That’s incorrect,” Hassan said. “Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason.”

As for the cost of President Donald Trump’s border plans, even Republicans expressed doubts.

“I know the wall is (of) great symbolic value, but I think we should reassess the cost,” Republican Chair Rand Paul of Kentucky said about the House’s reconciliation package, which calls for $46 billion in border wall funding.

Noem appeared before the committee to discuss President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget request for Congress along with the border security provisions in the reconciliation package. Congressional Republicans are using reconciliation — a special procedure that skirts the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster — to put together one bill to fulfill Trump’s priorities on border security, tax cuts, energy policy and defense.

“The border crisis is the biggest problem that was facing our country, and it was one that was imperative to fixing for our nation’s future,” Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, said. “We’re solving this crisis at a record pace, and we have delivered the most secure border in American history.”

Senate Democrats pressed Noem about DHS spending, noting that she is on track to run out of funding by mid-July, and her agency’s immigration crackdown that has led to expensive immigration enforcement.

The top Democrat on the panel, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, noted that detaining migrants at the Guantanamo naval base costs as much as $100,000 a day, compared to $160 a day at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. 

“I think that’s kind of outrageous,” Peters said. “I’m concerned by the staggering cost of this, and I would hope, Secretary (Noem), you could commit to providing this committee a detailed breakdown of the total cost of that operation there.”

Noem said she would get the cost breakdown for him. 

Questions about habeas corpus

Several Senate Democrats, including Hassan, Andy Kim of New Jersey and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, questioned comments from senior White House officials such as Stephen Miller, who has said discussions about suspending habeas corpus were underway.

Habeas corpus allows people in the U.S. who believe they are being unlawfully detained to petition for their release in court, and it can be used to challenge immigration detention.

The U.S. Constitution in allowing for habeas corpus to be suspended says “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” That provision is within Article I of the Constitution, which covers the functions of the legislative branch, or Congress.

Habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in U.S. history, during the Civil War; in almost a dozen South Carolina counties that were overrun by the Ku Klux Klan during reconstruction; in a 1905 insurrection in U.S. territories in the Philippines; and after the Pearl Harbor bombing in Hawaii.

Slotkin told Noem she was concerned by her response that she believes the president has the right to suspend habeas corpus.

“You sat here in front of all of us and swore an oath to the Constitution,” Slotkin said to Noem, adding that if the president were to suspend habeas corpus, it would be a “complete overreach.”

“It is a right that we all get, that American citizens get, that people who are in the United States legally have,” Slotkin said.

Kim asked Noem, a former member of the U.S. House, if she knew what section of the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus and which article it’s under.

Noem did not know the answer to either question.

“It’s in Article I,” Kim said. “Do you know which branch of government Article I outlines the tasks and the responsibilities for?”

Noem said Congress. She then argued former President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus between Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia because of the Civil War and initially did so without congressional approval. He later called Congress back into session to get congressional approval for it.

Reality show with competing immigrants

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut asked Noem if DHS was considering hosting a reality show that would make immigrants compete for citizenship, according to multiple media reports.

Noem vehemently denied that DHS was looking at it.

“There may have been something submitted somewhere along the line, because there are proposals pitched to the department, but me and my executive team have no knowledge of a reality show, and it’s not under consideration,” she said.

Kim pressed Noem about the recent confrontation between House lawmakers and immigration officials at Delaney Hall in his home state of New Jersey.

Three New Jersey Democratic members – Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman, LaMonica McIver and Rob Menendez — were in Newark protesting the reopening of Delaney Hall, an immigrant detention center.

The mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, who was also protesting, was arrested.

The Trump administration Monday levied two felony charges against one of those members, McIver, accusing her of assaulting officers during Baraka’s arrest.

Kim said he was concerned about the incident and asked Noem if she was aware that members of Congress do not need prior notice to conduct oversight at DHS facilities.

Members of Congress are allowed to conduct oversight visits at any DHS facility that detains immigrants, without prior notice, under provisions in an appropriations law.

Noem accused the three House members of “storming” the facility.

“We give tours when members of Congress ask for it, we just ask that they not be politicized,” she said.

Prep for big sporting events

Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott and Rand Paul asked Noem about how prepared DHS is for providing security to big sporting events such as the Super Bowl and soccer’s World Cup.

Scott wanted to know how security preparations for the 2026 World Cup, which includes games in Miami, are going.

Miami is one of 11 U.S. cities hosting the World Cup. The others are Atlanta; Boston; Dallas; Houston; Kansas City, Missouri; Los Angeles; the San Francisco Bay area; the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area; Philadelphia; and Seattle.

“We are working diligently with FIFA and other entities to ensure that cities and states have the assets that they need. This will be an unprecedented world event,” Noem said. “It will be taking place in three different countries and many cities across our country, but also Mexico and Canada, and it will take place over a month.”

The World Cup, which first began in the 1930s, is typically held in one country every four years. The last time two countries hosted the month-long event was in 2002, with Japan and South Korea.

Paul asked Noem if the NFL or FIFA, international soccer’s governing body, ever paid DHS for its security measures.

Noem said no.

“Here’s my point,” Paul said. “The NFL makes billions of dollars. These people ought to pay. I mean, it’s ridiculous that the average taxpayer could never afford to go to an NFL Super Bowl, (and) has got to pay for their security.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before Congress on Tuesday that a major report due out later this week from his agency will not disparage farmers or a commonly used pesticide.

Kennedy, who has long been critical of certain aspects of modern agriculture and processed food, at a U.S. Senate hearing urged lawmakers to read the widely anticipated “Make America Healthy Again” report once it’s published Thursday, but didn’t go into details about any possible recommendations.

“Everybody will see the report,” Kennedy said. “And there’s nobody that has a greater commitment to the American farmer than we do. The MAHA movement collapses if we can’t partner with the American farmer in producing a safe, robust and abundant food supply.”

His comments followed stern questioning from Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who said she had read news reports from “reliable sources” that the MAHA Commission’s initial assessment “may unfairly target American agriculture, modern farming practices and the crop protection tools that roughly 2% of our population relies on to help feed the remaining 98%.”

“If Americans lose confidence in the safety and integrity of our food supply due to the unfounded claims that mislead consumers, public health will be at risk,” Hyde-Smith said. “I’ve said this before, and it’s worth saying again, countries have gone to war over many things — politics, religion, race, trade, natural resources, oil, pride, you name it — but threaten a nation’s food supply and allow people to go hungry. Let’s see what happens then.”

Hyde-Smith, who was her home state’s commissioner of agriculture and commerce from 2012 to 2018, probed Kennedy about his past work in environmental law and whether he might be inserting “confirmation bias” into the forthcoming report.

She asked Kennedy if he would try to change the current approval for glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide, that she referred to as “one of the most thoroughly studied products of its kind.”

“We’re talking about more than 1,500 studies and 50-plus years of review by the EPA and other leading global health authorities that have affirmed its safety when used as directed,” Hyde-Smith said. “Have you been able to review thousands of studies and decades of scientific review in a matter of months?”

Kennedy responded that her “information about the report is just simply wrong.”

“The drafts that I’ve seen, there is not a single word in them that should worry the American farmer,” Kennedy said.

Hyde-Smith continued her questioning and told Kennedy that it would be “a shame if the MAHA commission issues reports suggesting, without substantial facts and evidence, that our government got things terribly wrong when it reviewed a number of crop protection tools and deemed them to be safe.”

Home energy program in Maine

Several other Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee raised concerns during the two-hour hearing about how Kennedy has run HHS since they confirmed him in February.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the full Appropriations Committee, brought up the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, which the Trump administration has called on Congress to eliminate.

“The LIHEAP program, which we’ve talked about, is absolutely vital for thousands of older Mainers and low-income families,” Collins said. “It helps them avoid the constant worry of having to choose between keeping warm, buying essential foods and medications and other basic necessities.”

Kennedy sought to distance himself from the president’s budget request, saying that he understands “the critical, historical importance of this program.”

“President (Donald) Trump’s rationale and (the Office of Management and Budget’s) rationale is that President Trump’s energy policies are going to lower the cost of energy … so that everybody will get lower cost heating oil,” Kennedy said.

NIH indirect costs

Subcommittee Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., brought up several issues with Kennedy, including efforts to change how much the National Institutes of Health provides to medical schools and research universities for Facilities and Administrative fees, often called indirect costs.

NIH sought to set that amount at 15% across the board for any institution that receives a research grant from the agency, a significantly lower amount than many of the organizations had negotiated over the years, bringing about strong objections from institutions of higher education.

That NIH policy has not taken effect as several lawsuits work their way through the federal court system.

Kennedy indicated NIH has figured out a way to help medical schools and research universities pay for items like gloves, test tubes and mass spectrometers, particularly at state schools.

“In the public universities, we are very much aware that those universities are using the money well, that it is absolutely necessary for them. And we’re looking at a series of different ways that we can fund those costs through them,” Kennedy said. “But not through the independent, indirect cost structure, which loses all control, which deprives us of all control of how that money is spent.”

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, a Republican, brought up the measles outbreak and pressed Kennedy on whether HHS needed additional resources to help his home state and others get the virus under control.

Kennedy testified the “best way to prevent the spread of measles is through vaccination” and that HHS has been urging “people to get their MMR vaccines.”

South Dakota grant on mine safety

South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds called on Kennedy to continue fixing issues created earlier this year when HHS fired people working on mine safety issues at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

“My office has learned that staff at NIOSH’s Spokane mining research division have been laid off. This office focuses on the unique challenges of Western mining operations that are often more geologically complex and exposed to harsher conditions,” Rounds said. “This division provides critical technical support for institutions like the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, which recently received a $1.25 million grant to improve underground mining safety. However, the grant has now been canceled due to loss of oversight from the Spokane office.

“This is not just a missed opportunity, it undermines our ability to meet national security goals tied to mineral independence and supply chain resilience.”

Kennedy testified that he’s been able to bring back 238 workers at the agency and said he would work with Rounds to address ongoing issues.

Pledge to fund Head Start, but no dollar amount

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, a Republican, asked Kennedy about news reports earlier this year that HHS would ask Congress to zero out funding for Head Start, one of numerous programs left out of the administration’s skinny budget request. Head Start provides early learning, health, family and development programs for free for children from low-income families.

Kennedy testified that eliminating Head Start would likely not be in the full budget request, which is set to be released later this year, though the White House budget office has not said when. He said it would ask Congress to fully fund the program, but didn’t share a dollar amount.

“There’s 800,000 of the poorest kids in this country who are served by this program. It not only teaches the kids preschool skills — reading, writing and arithmetic — before they get to prepare them for school. But it also teaches the parents and teaches them how to be good parents.”

Kennedy said there are challenges faced by the Head Start program that he hopes to change during the next four years, including the quality of the food.

“The food they’re serving at Head Start is terrible. You need to change that,” Kennedy said. “We’re poisoning the poorest kids from their youngest years, and we’re going to change that.”

Former U.S. Rep. Billy Long, nominee for Internal Revenue Service commissioner, testifies before the Senate Finance Committee at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — Senators tasked with tax writing split along party lines Tuesday praising and grilling former Republican U.S. Rep. Billy Long of Missouri, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Internal Revenue Service, the agency tasked with enforcing the largest source of U.S. revenue as the country faces record debt and interest costs.

Long, who served in Congress from 2011 to 2023 and previously spent multiple years as a talk radio host, testified to the Senate Finance Committee that he plans to get rid of “stinking thinking” at the IRS and implement a “comprehensive plan” to modernize the agency and “invest in retaining skilled members of the team.”

“This does not mean a bloated agency, but an efficient one where employees have the tools they need to succeed,” Long said.

The agency has lost more than 11,000 employees, or 11% of its workforce, either through deferred resignations or mass firing of probationary workers since Trump began his second term, according to a May 2 report from the agency’s inspector general. Trump said in December he intended to nominate Long for the IRS post.

‘Top-down culture change’

Committee Chair Mike Crapo of Idaho opened the confirmation hearing expressing his confidence in Long, saying he will direct a “sea change” at the agency that will benefit taxpayers.

“President Trump called Congressman Long the ‘consummate people person.’ Congressman Long is very clear that he will make himself available to all IRS employees, no matter their seniority. Moreover, he wants to implement a top-down culture change at the agency,” Crapo said.

The confirmation hearing comes as lawmakers struggle to agree on a budget reconciliation package, which will extend and expand Trump’s 2017 tax law and in turn widen IRS responsibilities.

Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said he trusted Long’s work ethic and told him, “We’re going to do a tax bill here in the next couple of months. To be able to get that done, as we did it in 2017, there’ll be a lot of work the IRS has to do to be able to put guidance documents out, to be able to get clear instructions of what that means.”

Nonexistent tribal tax credits

Democrats approached the hearing with skepticism.

The nearly two-hour back-and-forth with Long followed recent revelations that he accepted donations to his defunct Senate campaign shortly after Trump nominated him as the IRS commissioner. Democratic senators on the panel have also called for an investigation into Long’s work with a company that peddled nonexistent tribal tax credits.

“Bottom line, the American people have the right to know whether the future IRS commissioner is a crook,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the panel’s top Democrat.

Long denies any wrongdoing.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, pressed Long about $65,000 he allegedly received for his involvement promoting the fake tax credits for the companies Capital Edge Strategies and White River.

“Knowing that (the credits) are illegal, the IRS has said they’re illegal, how do you stand here before this committee and tell the chairman just a few minutes ago that you have no conflict of interest?” Cortez Masto asked.

Long replied that he’s in compliance with the Office of Government Ethics regarding his nomination and that he “did not have any perception whatsoever that these (credits) did not exist.”

Other Democrats on the panel questioned Long on Trump’s recent statements that he would pull Harvard University’s tax-exempt status over its refusal to comply with demands from the administration.

Wyden characterized Long as a “MAGA devotee” and said that Trump wants to use the IRS “as a cudgel to beat his adversaries into submission.”

14-page letter

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who sent Long a 14-page letter questioning his past, repeatedly asked Long about a statute prohibiting the president from ordering tax audits on specific people or businesses.

“Is it illegal for the President to instruct the IRS to remove nonprofit status from taxpayers?” Warren asked several times.

“I’m not going to have the answer that you need, I apologize,” Long said.

Senate Republicans on the panel questioned Long on how he can improve customer service for taxpayers — despite the party successfully fighting in 2023 to cut new IRS funding under President Joe Biden in 2022.

Sen. Todd Young of Indiana said the agency is “behind the curve” on technology and that its customer service issues are “out of hand.”

“If confirmed, will you commit to developing a comprehensive IRS modernization plan that prioritizes customer service, identifies critical technology infrastructure needs and ensures greater transparency and audit practices? Yes or no?” Young asked.

“Yes,” Long replied.

“Excellent,” Young said. 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will allow, for now, the Trump administration to terminate temporary protections for a group of 350,000 Venezuelans, striking down a lower court’s order that blocked the process.

The order still means the group of Venezuelans on Temporary Protected Status — a designation given to nationals from countries deemed too dangerous to return to remain in the U.S. — will be able to continue to challenge in court the end of their work permits and the possibility of removal. But they no longer have protections from deportation. 

No justices signed onto the ruling, which is typical in cases brought before the high court on an emergency basis, but liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted she would have denied the request.

TPS status for that group of Venezuelans — a portion of Venezuelans living in the United States, not all of them — was set to end on April 7 under a move by the Trump administration.

But U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California in March blocked Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to vacate an extension of TPS protections that had been put in place by the Biden administration until October 2026.

The case is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chen, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, blocked the Trump administration from removing protections for that group of Venezuelans on the basis that Noem’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious,” and potentially motivated by racism.

“Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism,” Chen wrote in his order.

Noem cited gang activity as her reason for not extending TPS for the group of 350,000 Venezuelans, who came to the United States in 2023.

A second group of 250,000 Venezuelans who were granted TPS in 2021 will have their work and deportation protections expire in September. Chen’s order did not apply to the second group of Venezuelans.

Those with TPS have deportation protections and are allowed to work and live in the United States for 18 months, unless extended by the DHS secretary.

Democrats criticized Monday’s decision, including Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

“Ending protections for Venezuelans fleeing Maduro’s regime is cruel, short-sighted, and destabilizing,” he wrote on social media.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington state, wrote on social media that Venezuelans “face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and torture — the exact type of situation that requires our government to provide TPS.”

Monday’s order is one of several immigration-related emergency requests from the Trump administration before the Supreme Court.

Last week, the high court heard oral arguments that stemmed from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

And justices in a separate case, again, denied the Trump administration from resuming the deportations of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act. 

The U.S. Capitol is pictured on Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom) 

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on the Budget Committee moved the “one big, beautiful” reconciliation bill a step closer to the chamber floor in a rare Sunday night vote after a handful of conservatives blocked the bill Friday. 

The massive deal squeaked through on a 17-16 vote, with four far-right panel members voting “present.” They were Reps. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Chip Roy of Texas. All four voted no on the bill Friday.

Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania flipped his Friday vote of “no” to support the massive budget reconciliation deal that cuts safety net programs to pay for extending, and expanding, President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law — at a cost of $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

Smucker, the panel’s vice chair, switched his vote Friday because of committee procedural rules that allowed him to propose reconsideration of the measure.

Brecheen, Clyde, Norman and Roy voted “no” on Friday after demanding work requirements for some Medicaid recipients begin prior to the bill’s stated date of 2029, and that clean energy tax credits phase out at a faster pace.

Roy wrote on social media Sunday night that he changed his vote “out of respect for the Republican Conference and the President to move the bill forward” but that the bill “does not yet meet the moment.”

Other details on why the members changed their votes to “present” were unclear. 

When asked by Democrats on the panel whether anything had changed in the bill, Budget Committee Chair Jody Arrington said negotiations were “fluid.”

“Deliberations continue at this very moment. They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House,” said Arrington of Texas.

Ranking Member Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania said his side of the aisle wanted “transparency.”

“If the bill has changed and there’s been some side agreement reached, I think it’s important that all the members have the full details on that in advance of any vote,” Boyle said.

Massive bill

The committee’s tense Sunday night meeting began nearly 30 minutes late.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana told reporters on Capitol Hill shortly beforehand that talks were going “great” and that “minor modifications” had been made over the weekend.

The 1,116-page bill package that includes bills from 11 separate committees will now need to clear the House Committee on Rules to advance to a full House vote. House members are set to leave for Memorial Day recess on Thursday.

As written, the bill cuts more than $600 billion over the next decade from Medicaid, the government health program for low-income individuals as well as those with disabilities.

Credit downgrade

Sunday night’s vote came just two days after Moody’s Ratings downgraded the U.S. government’s credit rating, citing a gloomy outlook for U.S. debt and interest burdens.

“Successive US administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs,” a Friday statement from the investment rating service read. “We do not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration.”

The reconciliation package could add up to $3.3 trillion to the national debt through 2034, reaching $5.2 trillion if temporary provisions are made permanent, according to analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Congressional Budget Office has not yet released scores for all parts of the megabill.

The far-right House Freedom Caucus board released a statement shortly after Sunday night’s vote, saying the bill continues to increase deficits “with possible savings years down the road that may never materialize.”

“Thanks to discussions over the weekend, the bill will be closer to the budget resolution framework we agreed upon in the House in April, but it fails to actually honor our promise to significantly correct the spending trajectory of the federal government and lead our nation towards a balanced budget,” according to the statement posted on social media.

Members of the caucus who do not serve on the Budget Committee made similar public statements.

“America faces the reality of financial insolvency and looming bankruptcy. For 9 years, I have remained faithful to principles that include an end to the continuous growth of FedGov deficit spending. I will not support a federal budget that increases federal deficit spending,” GOP Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana wrote on his X profile Sunday.

Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee wrote on the social media site, “The Moody’s downgrade is yet another wake up call. We need to decrease spending immediately!”

Thin margins

As expected, and following Friday’s same result, Democrats on the panel voted unanimously against the package.

Republicans hold a slim 220-213 margin in the House, meaning that if more than three Republicans vote with Democrats — who are all expected to vote against the package — the bill would fail on the floor.

Republicans swiftly voted down several last-ditch efforts by Democrats on the panel to protect low-income health care and food assistance programs, as well as clean energy and manufacturing tax credits.

Johnson must also contend with a parallel — and expensive — fight among his conference on the state and local taxes, or SALT, deduction. Republicans who represent high-income, high-tax blue states like California and New York, are demanding a more generous cap on the amount they can deduct. 

President Joe Biden delivers his farewell address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 15, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Mandel Ngan - Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with “a more aggressive form” of prostate cancer, according to a statement from his office on Sunday.

The statement said Biden, 82, last week was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms. “On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade group 5) with metastasis to the bone,” the statement said.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” it continued. “The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.”

The New York Times had reported on May 12 that a few days earlier, a “small nodule” was discovered on Biden’s prostate that required “further evaluation,” according to a spokesman.

According to the National Cancer Institute, prostate cancer is slow-growing, the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States and the most common cancer.

‘Joe is a fighter’

Statements of support immediately began pouring in on Sunday as word spread of the diagnosis.

“Doug and I are saddened to learn of President Biden’s prostate cancer diagnosis,” his former vice president and the 2024 Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, said on X. “We are keeping him, Dr. Biden, and their entire family in our hearts and prayers during this time. Joe is a fighter — and I know he will face this challenge with the same strength, resilience, and optimism that have always defined his life and leadership. We are hopeful for a full and speedy recovery.”

“Melania and I are saddened to hear about Joe Biden’s recent medical diagnosis,” President Donald Trump wrote on social media. “We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who was the party’s vice presidential candidate after Biden dropped out of the race and  Harris took his place at the top of the ticket, said on X that Biden was “a truly decent man and a friend.”

“Gwen and I are praying for President Biden and his family,” he wrote.

“I am saddened to hear of President Biden’s cancer diagnosis and am wishing him and his family well as he begins treatment,” Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins wrote on X.

Pete Buttigieg, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor who served as Biden’s Transportation secretary after running against Biden, Harris and others in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, said Biden “is a man of deep faith and extraordinary resilience.”

“Chasten and I are keeping him, and the entire Biden family, in our prayers for strength and healing,” Buttigieg wrote on X.

“Joe has been a fighter his whole life. He will prevail. Sending Dr. Jill Biden and their family my absolute support,” Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania posted on X.

“This is very sad news. Praying for his recovery,” GOP Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said on X. “We are rooting for President Biden in this fight!” former Florida U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz wrote, reposting Luna’s post.

Age a factor in presidential race

Biden’s doctors said he was fit and healthy enough to be president after evaluations in February, 2024.

“President Biden is a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency,” Dr. Kevin C. O’Connor wrote.

But by that summer, Biden’s deteriorating state  — though not connected to the diagnosis disclosed Sunday — would force him out of his reelection bid.

Biden dropped out of the race for the presidency on July 21, 2024, creating an unprecedented vacancy atop the Democratic ticket one month before he was scheduled to officially accept his party’s nomination. He endorsed Harris to take his place as the Democratic nominee, and she was nominated by Democrats but lost the election to Trump.

Biden’s withdrawal came after a weeks-long pressure campaign from party insiders following a disastrous June 27, 2024, debate performance against GOP candidate Trump and rising criticism that he could not mount a winning campaign against the man he had defeated in 2020. Biden appeared frail and confused at several points during the debate, leading to worries he was no longer up to the task of governing.

After leaving the White House on Jan. 20, Biden kept a low profile and did not make public remarks until April 15, when he criticized the current administration for cutting thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration and rebutted those who have questioned the program’s relevance.

“In fewer than 100 days, this new administration has done so much damage and so much destruction. It’s kind of breathtaking it could happen that soon,” Biden said. “They’ve taken a hatchet to the Social Security Administration, pushing 7,000 employees — 7,000 — out the door in that time, including the most seasoned career officials.”

Book publication

In more recent days, the publication of a book by two political reporters, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson of Axios, sparked controversy by its claims that those in Biden’s inner circle worked to keep his cognitive decline from public view.

Titled “Original Sin,” the book — based on interviews with what the authors said were more than 200 people, mostly Democratic insiders —  included new details about the presidency, such as Biden apparently failing to recognize movie star George Clooney at a fundraiser in June 2024 in Los Angeles. Biden’s decline was such in 2023 and 2024 that use of a wheelchair was discussed, if he was reelected, the book reported.

Just Friday, the White House released audio of an interview of Biden by Department of Justice special counsel Robert Hur who issued a lengthy report concluding that while President Joe Biden “willfully retained” classified materials following his time as vice president, he would not be charged with a crime.

Hur wrote in the 388-page February 2024 report that prosecutors considered “that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday, May 16, 2025, that the Trump administration's attempt to deport a group of Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law "does not pass muster." (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday kept in place a block on the Trump administration’s efforts to deport 176 Venezuelans in Northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

A majority of the justices found that President Donald Trump’s administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelans when the administration tried to deport them from North Texas last month by invoking the 18th-century wartime law. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” according to the decision.

The justices did not determine the legality of the Trump administration using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans 14 and older with suspected ties to the gang Tren de Aragua.

On his social media platform, Trump expressed his disapproval of the ruling.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote on Truth Social.

The justices found that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction,” and vacated that order, sending the case back.

The Trump administration on Monday asked the high court to remove the injunction, arguing that detaining suspected members of Tren de Aragua poses a threat to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and staff.

In a Wednesday response, the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, warned that if the Supreme Court lifts its injunction, “most of the putative class members will be removed with little chance to seek judicial review.”

In Friday’s order, the justices noted that because the Trump administration has used the Alien Enemies Act to send migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador, careful due process is needed.

“The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador…where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention,” according to the order, noting the wrongful deportation of Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

“The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty,” the court continued.

Other rulings

On April 18, the ACLU made an emergency application to the high court, asking to bar any removals under the Alien Enemies Act in the Northern District of Texas over concerns that the Trump administration was not following due process.

Several federal judges elsewhere have blocked the use of the wartime law in their districts that cover Colorado, Southern Texas and Southern New York.

A federal judge in Western Pennsylvania Tuesday was the first to uphold the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, but said those accused must have at least three weeks to challenge their removal.

Maryland Democratic U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the district where Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his wife live, led the chant “bring him home” outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland shortly before a hearing in Abrego Garcia’s case on Friday, May 16, 2025. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

GREENBELT, MARYLAND — A federal judge said Friday the Trump administration has “pretty broadly” invoked the state secrets privilege to withhold information on its efforts — or, the judge indicated, a possible lack of effort — to return a wrongly deported Maryland man from a prison in El Salvador.

President Donald Trump’s administration moved last month to invoke the so-called state secrets privilege to shield information about its process to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States after a top immigration official admitted his removal to a prison in El Salvador was an “administrative error.”

The judge handling the case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, granted an expedited discovery process after she found last month that “nothing has been done” by the administration to return Abrego Garcia.

She did not make a public order regarding the state secrets privilege Friday afternoon before closing her courtroom to the public to discuss sensitive matters with attorneys for Abrego Garcia and the Department of Justice.

The state secrets privilege is a common-law doctrine that protects sensitive national security information from being released. The Trump administration has argued the need to invoke it in this case to protect diplomatic relationships.

‘He’ll never walk free in the United States’

During the public portion of Friday’s hearing, Xinis pressed the Department of Justice attorneys about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s comment that Abrego Garcia “will not return” to the U.S.

“That sounds to me like an admission that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return,” Xinis said. “That’s about as clear as it can get.”

DOJ attorney Jonathan D. Guynn disagreed and said the Trump administration is complying with court orders. He said Noem’s comment meant that if Abrego Garcia was back in U.S. custody he would be removed either to another third country or back to El Salvador.

“He’ll never walk free in the United States,” Guynn said.

He added that the Trump administration is “currently complying and we plan to comply.”

Xinis said she disagreed, and then she clashed with Guynn over the legality of Abrego Garcia’s removal.

Guynn said that he was lawfully deported.

Xinis answered that she found months ago that Abrego Garcia was unlawfully detained and removed from the U.S.

Few documents produced

One of the attorneys for Abrego Garcia, Andrew J. Rossman, said the Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege for 1,140 documents relating to the case. From that request, Rossman said his team received 168 documents, but 132 were copies of court filings and requests made by him and his team.

Xinis seemed visibly stunned by Rossman’s report and had to clarify that his team had only received 36 new documents, which Rossman confirmed.

Rossman said that none of the documents for which the government is invoking the state secrets privilege are classified.

“There’s ways to do this right, and they haven’t done it,” he said, noting that he has attorneys on his team who have security clearances and can review classified and sensitive information.

Rossman said that he and his team are seeking answers to three questions: the status of Abrego Garcia, what steps the Trump administration has taken, if any, to facilitate his return, and the steps the federal government will take, if any, to comply with court orders.

Guynn said the Trump administration received an update from El Salvador on Thursday that Abrego Garcia was in “good health” and had “even gained weight.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.

Rossman, said that it’s “deeply disturbing” that administration officials, including the president, have made public statements that contradict court orders directing the government to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

President Donald Trump has said he could easily pick up the phone and order El Salvador to return him but won’t because he believes Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.

Noem was pressed at a May 14 congressional hearing about a photo that appears altered to add letters across Abrego Garcia’s knuckles to indicate his inclusion in the gang. She said she was unaware of it.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia, in a separate case regarding Trump’s use of an archaic wartime law for deportations, questioned Department of Justice attorneys on the president’s claim that he could order Abrego Garcia to be returned. The attorney admitted that the president sometimes overstates his influence abroad.

El Salvador prison

Abrego Garcia has had protections from deportation since 2019, but he was one of nearly 300 men on three mid-March removal flights to a notorious prison in El Salvador known as CECOT.

Abrego Garcia has been moved to a lower security prison, according to Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to the country last month to meet with Abrego Garcia and inquire with Salvadoran officials about why he is being held there.

Those officials said Abrego Garcia was being held because of the agreement between the United States and El Salvador.

The U.S. has a $15 million agreement with El Salvador’s government to house immigrants removed from the U.S., mostly Venezuelans removed under the wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is a national of El Salvador and in that country’s custody and the U.S. cannot force another government to return him. 

Hours before Friday’s hearing, dozens of protestors gathered outside the court, calling for Abrego Garcia to be returned to the U.S., as well as criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

U.S. Rep. Glenn Ivey, who represents the area in Maryland where Abrego Garcia and his family live, appeared outside the court and led chants calling for the release of Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

“The president has to obey the orders of the Supreme Court,” Ivey said. “The Supreme Court has spoken here, and it’s time for him to follow it and bring him home.”

The U.S. House Budget Committee votes on Friday, May 16, 2025 on a massive reconciliation package. The vote failed, 16-21. (Screenshot from House webcast)

WASHINGTON — Republicans suffered a major setback to their “big, beautiful bill” on Friday, when amid conservative objections the U.S. House Budget Committee failed to approve the measure, a crucial step in the process.

In a 16-21 vote, Reps. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Chip Roy of Texas and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania broke from their GOP colleagues to block the bill from moving toward the floor, demanding changes to several provisions.

The breakdown over the 1,116-page bill marks an escalation in the long-running feud between centrist Republicans, who have been cautious about hundreds of billions in spending cuts to safety net programs, and far-right members of the party, who argue the changes are not enough.

The committee is scheduled to reconvene Sunday at 10 p.m. Eastern. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has said he wants the package on the floor prior to the Memorial Day recess.

Speedier work requirements

Norman said he remains a “hard no” until new work requirements for Medicaid recipients phase in more quickly. As the bill is written, the requirements won’t begin until 2029.

“To phase this in for four years — We’re telling a healthy-bodied, a healthy American that you got four years to get a job. No, your payment stops now,” Norman said.

Brecheen criticized the bill for not going far enough to repeal wind and solar energy tax credits, which he contends are “undermining natural gas jobs.”

“We have to fix this,” he said.

Clyde denounced the measure for not adhering to President Donald Trump’s promise of “right-sizing government,” as Clyde described it. The Georgia Republican also pleaded for lower taxes on firearms and stronger cuts that would put Medicaid on a “sustainable path.”

“Unfortunately, the current version falls short of these goals and fails to deliver the transformative change that Americans were promised,” Clyde said.

Smucker initially voted ‘yes,’ but then joined his four colleagues to oppose the measure.

Trump wrote on his social media platform shortly before the committee voted that “Republicans MUST UNITE behind, ‘THE ONE, BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!’”

“We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE! It is time to fix the MESS that Biden and the Democrats gave us. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

‘A wrecking ball to Medicaid’

Democrats, who as expected unified in voting no against the bill, slammed it as “ugly,” “cruel” and a “betrayal.”

“This bill takes a wrecking ball to Medicaid, on which 1 in 5 Americans and 3 million Ohioans depend for medical care — children, seniors in nursing homes,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, who represents northern Ohio. “Please come with me to visit the nursing homes. … Perhaps too many on the other side of the aisle have not had to endure a life that has major challenges.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said the proposed cuts to safety net programs would be “devastating.”

“Their changes will kick millions of Americans off their health care and nutrition assistance. That means more untreated illnesses, more hungry children, more preventable deaths,” she said.

Republican-only bill

Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship. 

Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.

Republicans are using the package to 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.

The 11 House committees tasked with drafting pieces of the legislation have all debated and approved their measures along party lines.

The Agriculture Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Ways and Means Committee all completed their work earlier this week, amid strong objections from Democrats.

Proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, could shift considerable cost-sharing onto states for the first time, presenting challenges for red-state lawmakers who need to explain the bill back home.

More than $600 billion in federal spending cuts to Medicaid during the next decade could also cause some difficulties for moderate Republicans, some of whose constituents are likely to be among the millions of Americans expected to lose their health insurance.

Republicans also have yet to reach an agreement on the state and local tax deduction or SALT, a priority for GOP lawmakers from blue states like California, New Jersey and New York.

The Budget Committee’s role in the process was to package together all of the bills and then send the one massive bill to the Rules Committee, the last stop before floor debate for major legislation.

That won’t be able to happen until after GOP leaders get nearly all the Republican lawmakers on the panel to support the package. 

South Dakota state Rep. Karla Lems, R-Canton, speaks to hundreds of rally attendees at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre on Jan. 13, 2025, during an event highlighting opposition to a carbon dioxide pipeline. (Photo by Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

Lawmakers and advocates on the right and left are raising questions about a provision in legislation a powerful U.S. House committee approved Wednesday, with critics arguing it would allow federal regulators to approve natural gas and carbon dioxide pipelines over prohibitions in state law.

Two sections in the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s reconciliation instructions, which the Republican-led panel passed along party lines, would allow pipeline operators to pay $10 million to participate in an expedited federal permitting process that critics say would override state laws.

The potentially intensely controversial provision would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive authority to issue licenses for pipelines carrying natural gas, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, oil, or other energy products and byproducts.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Commission issues a license under subsection (c)(1) of this section and the licensee is in compliance with such license, no requirement of State or local law that requires approval of the location of the covered pipeline with respect to which the license is issued may be enforced against the licensee,” the text of the bill reads.

A summary document provided by the committee says the bill would apply to states only in cases when state agencies are responsible for conducting federal reviews.

“For States, this includes their authorities to impose conditions for any certifying authorities delegated to States by federal law,” the document says.

But a variety of groups and lawmakers — environmental groups opposed to loosening reviews, landholder advocates concerned about property rights and small-government conservatives who favor local control — say the measure would open the door for the federal government to nullify state and local protections.

That includes a recent South Dakota law to prevent pipeline operators from using eminent domain to force landowners to sell or allow use of their property.

“This is federal overreach,” South Dakota state Rep. Karla Lems said in a Thursday interview. “It would override any state or local law regarding … the routing of a pipeline.”

Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

The Energy and Commerce Committee was one of 11 House panels that have approved reconciliation instructions and sent them to the House Budget Committee to consolidate into one package. House Republicans plan to consider the 1,100-page package on the floor next week.

The complex process, known as budget reconciliation, allows the majority party to pass legislation with simple majorities in both chambers, avoiding the U.S. Senate’s usual 60-vote requirement.

President Donald Trump has described the package as “one big, beautiful bill” and it contains a host of his domestic policy priorities including extending tax cuts and increasing funding for immigration enforcement.

A provision in Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation bill encouraged an existing trend of pipeline installation in the Midwest. The measure provided tax breaks for carbon sequestration, which can involve piping the carbon dioxide byproducts that result from processes like ethanol production into underground storage chambers.

Actually building those pipelines across hundreds of miles between ethanol producers, particularly in farm states like Iowa and South Dakota, and underground storage facilities in North Dakota, where the geology supports it, requires the use of private land, which has been strongly opposed for several reasons and led to state restrictions.

Environmental and safety groups worry some pipeline at some point will rupture and therefore pose a danger to nearby residents and water sources.

Private property owners and conservative political allies say they should have stronger rights to resist pipeline operators from using their property.

Plea to Congress

That unusual coalition was apparent again this week as environmentalists and conservatives united to oppose the measure in the Energy and Commerce bill.

A collection of 70 environmental and conservation groups signed a letter to the committee Wednesday urging the language be removed.

“These measures would radically expand federal jurisdiction over all types of interstate pipelines, drastically limit public input, shorten environmental review timelines, and shield projects from legal challenges, all while clearing the way for expanded use of federal eminent domain against landowners,” the letter said.

The letter was signed by groups ranging from the local agriculture and conservation organization Dakota Rural Action to national environmental group Food & Water Watch.

South Dakota House Speaker Jon Hansen, a self-described MAGA Republican, tweeted screenshots of the provision with the message “property rights are under attack again.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican former U.S. House member and rival to Trump in the 2024 presidential nomination race, reposted the tweet.

“This represents overriding both the rights of states and private property owners to serve Biden’s Green New Deal,” DeSantis wrote above Hansen’s message. “What the heck is going on up there?”

Uncertainty over impact

Chase Jensen, a senior organizer with Dakota Rural Action, said in a press release accompanying the coalition letter that the group was calling on members of Congress “to stand with the State of South Dakota and oppose this clear attempt to buy permits and bypass the people.”

“When South Dakota was first faced with carbon dioxide pipelines, our congressmen said it was up to the state to deal with it,” Jensen said. “Now that we have barred eminent domain for these private projects – their billionaire owners are trying to cut the state out of the process altogether.”

South Dakota’s U.S. House member, Republican Dusty Johnson, said in a statement to South Dakota Searchlight he’d been unaware of the bill’s language but predicted it would be removed before final passage.

He indicated he was unsure what the effect of the bill would be, but started “from a place of deep skepticism.”

“I wasn’t aware of this language until committee text was released,” Johnson, who does not sit on Energy and Commerce, wrote. “As a former public utilities commissioner, I have strong concerns with bypassing state permitting and I begin from a place of deep skepticism for this language. I doubt it will be included in President Trump’s ‘one, big, beautiful bill.’”

But U.S. Rep. Julie Fedorchak, a North Dakota Republican who is a former state utility regulator, told reporters on a press call Thursday morning that she thought the bill would not block the state from being involved in environmental reviews, even if a company seeks a pipeline permit from federal regulators.

Fedorchak said she doesn’t think the proposal would limit local input on projects, adding that FERC has a “pretty robust permitting process” for interstate natural gas pipelines.

A spokesman for the Energy and Commerce Committee did not return a message seeking clarification Thursday.

North Dakota Monitor Editor Amy Dalrymple and South Dakota Searchlight Editor Seth Tupper contributed to this report.