U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters at the Capitol as lawmakers work on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans appeared deeply divided Wednesday over how to establish a fund for rural hospitals to offset the budget impacts of Medicaid cuts in the “big, beautiful bill.”

The hospitals, which are generally already hurting financially, rely heavily on Medicaid, a state-federal partnership that provides health insurance for low-income households and for some people with disabilities.

GOP senators haven’t yet reached agreement on how to structure the fund, or on dozens of other unresolved provisions in the sweeping package, even though leaders hope to begin voting as soon as Friday. Still up in the air were agreements on major provisions of the measure involving the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food aid program for low-income people and a proposed selloff of certain public lands.

Republican leaders continued to project optimism. “We’re well on our way to getting this bill passed this week,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a floor speech, continuing to press ahead toward a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. 

Others saw it differently. Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson cast doubt on the short timeframe leaders have set to reach final agreement and move the bill through both chambers.

“We’re still discussing some pretty fundamental issues,” Johnson said. “I’m just laying out the reality of the situation. We’ve got a lot of work to do.”

‘The only person up here that’s ever ran a rural hospital’

Dueling plans to establish the rural hospital fund to ease the threat of Medicaid cuts circulated among senators working to finalize the massive tax and spending cut measure, but an agreement had not surfaced by late afternoon.

Unofficial details showed Senate Republicans eyeing the inclusion of a $15 billion fund — $3 billion a year between fiscal 2027 and fiscal 2031 — to help rural hospitals, according to multiple reports.

But Sen. Roger Marshall, who sits on the Senate Committee on Finance, said he wants to increase that fund to $5 billion annually, with “half of that going to rural hospitals, and half of it going to primary care and prescription drugs and throw in physical therapy and occupational therapy, all the others as well.”

The Kansas Republican and physician said “we should probably only do it for four or five years and then regroup and see where we are.”

“I’m the only person up here that’s ever ran a rural hospital — I actually know something about them,” he added.

While Marshall said he loves “90%” of the broader bill, he said not nearly enough is being cut.

“But I can’t get the votes to do that, so it’d still be the largest cut in spending in my lifetime anyway,” he said, noting that “it’s going to be hard for the House to vote against it.”

Fund size criticized

On a midday call with reporters, Traci Gleason with the Missouri Budget Project said the stabilization fund being batted around by lawmakers “would fall well short of addressing these problems.”

“Forty-three percent of Missouri’s rural hospitals are at risk of closing, and 17% are considered to be at immediate risk,” said Gleason, who spoke during a virtual press briefing organized by the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Those figures don’t account for all of the other health care providers in rural communities, like federally qualified health centers and others that operate on these incredibly thin margins. So the massive cuts to Medicaid are what is creating the problem and the only real way to address it is for Congress to not make these massive cuts,” she said.

‘Problematic’ Medicaid cuts

Sen. Susan Collins was advocating for a much bigger rural hospital stabilization fund, at $100 billion.

“I don’t think that solves the entire problem,” the Maine Republican and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee said.

“The Senate cuts in Medicaid are far deeper than the House cuts, and I think that’s problematic as well.”

Sen. Jim Justice of West Virginia said that the $15 billion “is better than zero.”

“You know, naturally, I’d want it to be as high as it possibly can,” he said, adding that rural hospitals are the “lifeblood” of his state.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a loud voice against Medicaid benefit cuts, said a stabilization fund is a “good idea but we’re still going to have to address the longer term effects of this.”

When asked for a dollar figure, Hawley said “it depends on the structure of it.”

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said he keeps hearing the Senate will take a procedural vote on Friday, though that isn’t set in stone. 

“Should be a fun weekend for all of us,” Cornyn said. “Can’t wait.”

Once the Senate votes on what is called a motion to proceed, there’s a maximum of 20 hours of floor debate before the chamber must begin its marathon amendment voting session and eventually a passage vote.

SNAP provisions

Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, said a revised version of his committee’s bill had not yet been reviewed by the parliamentarian.

The updated text alters a section restructuring the cost-share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a key food assistance program for low-income people.

The provision would require states for the first time to shoulder some of the cost of the program’s benefits. The amount a state owes would be determined by its error payment rate, with greater error rates requiring a higher state share.

Complex rules govern what can and can’t be included in the measure. The Senate parliamentarian ruled the language in the initial proposal did not comply with the chamber’s reconciliation rules.

The updated proposal would allow states more flexibility during the policy’s phase-in in fiscal 2028, allowing them to choose either the error rate in fiscal 2025 or fiscal 2026.

Boozman told reporters that change sought to respond to the parliamentarian’s ruling.

The parliamentarian “asked us to allow them (states) to use a different time frame — essentially gave them more time to understand what their error rate would be and to plan for it,” Boozman said. “And so we adjusted for that and I think we satisfied it.”

Lee and public lands

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee of Utah reportedly narrowed a provision that would mandate the sale of Bureau of Land Management lands. He has not publicly said where it stands with the parliamentarian.

A committee spokesman did not return messages seeking clarification Tuesday and Wednesday, but a version of the changes obtained by news media shows changes consistent with what Lee proposed Monday.

Those changes include limiting the mandated sales to only the BLM — and not U.S. Forest Service lands, as Lee had initially proposed — and lowering the percentage of the agency’s lands that must be sold to between .25% and .5%. The initial proposal required between .5% and .75%.

The updated provision would also only require lands located within 5 miles of a population center to be sold and exempts lands that are currently used for grazing or another “valid existing right that is incompatible with the development of housing,” according to a copy of the changes obtained by hunting and angling publication Outdoor Life.

The provision has sparked opposition from Western lawmakers, including a handful of conservatives.

But it also has its share of supporters. Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan told reporters he had not seen the updated text but remained supportive of the idea.

“I’ve been supportive of what Sen. Lee is trying to do,” he said. “We have a lot of public lands in Alaska that the federal government abuses. But we’re in a good discussion on that, so I need to see the update.”

 

A makeshift memorial for DFL State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark Hortman, is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025 in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Photo by Steven Garcia/Getty Images)

The U.S. House unanimously adopted a resolution Wednesday condemning the June 14 attacks on former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, who were killed by a gunman, and state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, who were wounded.

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Kelly Morrison, who represents the suburban Minneapolis district where the Hortmans lived, also condemned political violence. Each of the seven other members of Minnesota’s bipartisan U.S. House delegation cosponsored the legislation and spoke in support on the House floor this week.

No House member spoke against the resolution during brief floor debate Tuesday. It passed 424-0 Wednesday, with eight members not voting.

Morrison, a Democrat, urged her colleagues to view the attacks as a “wake-up call” to tone down violent political rhetoric.

“The escalation and normalization of violent rhetoric and political violence have gone way too far, and we as elected representatives have to take the lead and be the first to speak out and to start to model a better path forward,” Morrison said. “Let’s make this the moment where we unequivocally condemn and commit to ending violent rhetoric, full stop. We have to make this horrific act of targeted political violence a watershed moment for our country.”

Rep. Pete Stauber, a Republican, said by targeting elected officials, the gunman attacked democracy.

“Make no mistake: This was not just an attack on the Hortman, Hoffman families,” Stauber said Tuesday. “This was an attack on the state of Minnesota and our shared ideals as Americans. Political violence such as this threatens the very fabric of our constitutional republic and can never be ignored or met without condemnation.”

June 14 shootings

Melissa and Mark Hortman were killed in the early morning of June 14 by a man impersonating a police officer.

The suspected killer, 57-year-old Vance Boelter, arrived at the Hortman home after shooting John and Yvette Hoffman in their home and visiting the homes of two other Democratic lawmakers, according to police, who also said they found a list of other elected officials in Boelter’s car.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz described the attack as “a politically motivated assassination.”

Police captured Boelter on June 15 after a nearly two-day search. He faces state and federal murder charges.

Melissa and Mark Hortman and their golden retriever, Gilbert, who also died after being shot in the attack, will lie in state at the Minnesota Capitol on Friday.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican who was shot in a targeted attack during a baseball practice eight years prior, also spoke in favor of the resolution Tuesday.

“As someone who’s experienced political violence firsthand, this brings back a lot of emotions,” Scalise said. “The man who shot me on the ballfield that day also had a list of lawmakers. I’m grateful for the actions of the brave law enforcement officers who ran towards the danger and saved lives on the ballfield that day and saved, undoubtedly, many lives in Minnesota on that day just a few days ago.”

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Monday, April 15, 2024.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

The United States could default between Aug. 15 and Oct. 3 if Congress doesn’t act to raise or suspend the debt limit before then, according to a projection the Bipartisan Policy Center published Wednesday.

The new estimate from the centrist Washington, D.C., think tank would give Congress slightly more time to address the issue than the center’s last analysis that projected the so-called X-date could hit as early as July.

Quarterly taxes received in April were higher than expected, while the economy has remained stable, which combined to help push the date later, the center said in a Wednesday news release.

The projection aligns with the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate this month that the X-date would come between mid-August and the end of September. 

The Bipartisan Policy Center analysis does not change the recommendation from the center, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others that Congress deal with the debt limit sooner rather than later.

“Congress must address the debt limit ahead of the August recess,” Margaret Spellings, president and CEO of the center, said in the Wednesday release. “Congress can’t afford to inject any additional uncertainty into the mix. They need to act soon to prioritize our nation’s financial stability and reassure global markets that we take this responsibility seriously.”

Both the House and Senate are scheduled to be in recess Aug. 4 through Sept. 2.

Global crisis looms

If Congress does not act, the U.S. would default on its debt for the first time, likely leading to a global financial crisis.

As of June 18, the federal treasury had $384 billion in cash on hand and could save another $89 billion through “extraordinary measures,” the term for accounting tricks the government can use to save cash in an emergency.

The exact date will depend on how much the government spends in July and August — months that typically see large deficits, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

If the government can avoid the debt limit until quarterly taxes are due on Sept. 15, those receipts would likely give more breathing room until early October, the center said.

Other factors that could influence the X-date include fluctuating tariff revenue and the potential for costly hurricanes this summer.

Big beautiful debt limit increase

The reconciliation package Republicans in Congress are racing to send to President Donald Trump’s desk by July Fourth includes a raise in the debt limit. The version that passed the House would raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, while the Senate version would increase it by $5 trillion.

Republican senators are scrambling this week to revamp several pieces of the legislative package as the chamber’s parliamentarian rules that some do not meet the strict rules for what can be considered under the fast-track procedure known as budget reconciliation.

The process allows the Senate to pass the bill with a simple majority, meaning Republicans could pass it without Democratic votes. But Republicans are still haggling among themselves over provisions to aid rural hospitals amid changes to Medicaid, sell off public lands and others.

Once passed in the Senate, either the House would have to approve that version or both chambers would have to vote on some kind of compromise language before Trump could sign the bill.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana speaks to reporters about the Republican budget reconciliation package at a weekly press conference on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans were scrambling Tuesday to restructure several proposals in the “big, beautiful bill” that don’t meet their chamber’s strict rules for passing a reconciliation package, while GOP lawmakers on the other side of the Capitol warned those changes may doom its passage in the House.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he and several others are working on a way to bolster rural hospitals, which could experience financial strain as a result of the various changes to Medicaid and other health care programs in the package.

“We are working on a solution for rural hospitals and that’s something that’s been in the works now for several days in response to a number of concerns that our colleagues have mentioned in ensuring that the impact on rural hospitals be lessened, be mitigated,” Thune said. “And I think we’re making good headway on that solution.”

Thune said GOP lawmakers shouldn’t let the “perfect be the enemy of the good,” though he predicted there “could be” two or three Republicans who vote against the package.

“We’ve got a lot of very independent-thinking senators who have reasons and things that they’d like to have in this bill that, in their view, would make it stronger,” Thune said. “But at the end of the day this is a process whereby not everybody is going to get what they want. And we have to get to 51 in the United States Senate.”

More objections to Medicaid cuts

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who has been vocal about Medicaid changes and rural hospitals, said he had “no details whatsoever” about the rural hospital fund or how it would work if it’s added to the bill.

But he said he’s not going to support a bill that takes away working people’s health care.

“We’ve got 1.3 million people on Medicaid in Missouri, hundreds of thousands of kids. That’s 21% of my population. Most of these people are working people. They’re on Medicaid, not because they’re sitting around at home; they’re on Medicaid because they don’t have a job that gives them health care and they cannot afford to buy it on the exchange,” Hawley said. “They don’t want to be, but it’s their only option. And I just think it’s wrong to take away health care coverage from those folks. Now if they’re not working, then sure, they should be.”

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said she had a “lengthy discussion” with her home state’s hospital association earlier in the day.

“This has a lot of impacts and we want to make sure we have a lot of rural hospitals. That’s why this rural hospital fund idea is developing,” Capito said. “I don’t think anything is set yet but that is an issue. I think Medicaid, we need to preserve it for the people it’s intended for and get rid of the people who don’t deserve it and don’t qualify and are bilking the system.”

Capito said she hadn’t yet formed an opinion on the rural hospital fund since there isn’t yet a formal proposal written down.

Public lands

In one major development, the Senate parliamentarian ruled Monday that a controversial provision championed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee to mandate the sale of at least 2 million acres of public lands in 11 Western states did not comply with the chamber’s rules for reconciliation.

Lee, a Utah Republican, has said the provision would free up land to build new housing. But Democrats and some Republicans from the affected states strongly opposed it.

Lee said on social media Monday evening that he was working to rewrite the proposal to comply with reconciliation rules. A spokesperson for his office did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday morning.

SNAP cost-sharing under debate

In another turn of events, Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., earlier Tuesday had announced the panel successfully reworked a provision that would transfer some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to state governments.

But a spokesperson for the panel said later that the parliamentarian actually has not yet made a ruling. The spokesperson said “we’ve gotten some clarification from leadership and it’s steering in the direction it would be compliant but not official.”

Boozman earlier had said his proposal would improve SNAP. “Our commonsense approach encourages states to adopt better practices, reduce error rates, be better stewards of taxpayer dollars, and prioritize the resources for those who truly need it,” Boozman wrote in a statement.

The new language, if accepted, would give states the option of selecting fiscal year 2025 or 2026 as the year that the federal government uses to determine its payment error rate for SNAP, which will then impact how much of the cost the state has to cover starting in fiscal year 2028. Afterward, a state’s payment error rate will be calculated using the last three fiscal years.

Any state with an error rate higher than 6% will have to cover a certain percentage of the cost of the nutrition program for lower income households.

Rushing toward deadline

The internal debates among lawmakers about how to rewrite major pieces of the tax and spending cuts package have led to a rushed feeling among Republican leaders, who have repeatedly promised to approve the final bill before the Fourth of July — an exceedingly tight timeline.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a press conference shortly after a closed-door House GOP conference meeting Tuesday that he’s hopeful the final bill that comes out of the Senate won’t make too many changes to what the House approved earlier this year.

“I remain very optimistic that there’s not going to be a wide chasm between the two products — what the Senate produces and what we produce,” Johnson said. “We all know what the touchpoints are and the areas of greatest concern.”

Republicans, he said, know they need to focus on preserving a fragile compromise on the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, that helps offset the cost of living in some higher-tax states like California, New Jersey and New York.

A deal Johnson brokered with GOP lawmakers in the SALT Caucus has been significantly rewritten in the Senate, but is expected to move back toward the House version, though not entirely.

Johnson also mentioned GOP efforts to roll back certain clean-energy provisions that Democrats approved and President Joe Biden signed into law in their signature climate change, health care and tax package, called the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, in 2022.

“We’ve got to get the SALT negotiation number right. We’ve got to make sure the IRA subsidies are handled in an appropriate manner,” Johnson said. “Look, you’ve got a number of provisions.”

Johnson said he expects the Senate to vote on its final bill by Friday or Saturday and that he’s told House lawmakers to “keep your schedules flexible” on being in Washington, D.C., for a final House vote. 

Trump goads Republicans

President Donald Trump sought to spur quick approval of a final bill, posting on social media that GOP lawmakers should get the package to him as soon as possible.

“To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don’t go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK. Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote Tuesday. “NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE. Everyone, most importantly the American People, will be much better off thanks to our work together. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin said there are concerns among his fellow Republicans about all of the provisions that must be removed or significantly reworked to meet the complex rules for moving a reconciliation bill through that chamber.

“Every time something comes out that we’re using as a pay for, it takes the deficit reduction down. And they’ve taken out nearly $300 billion so far. We’ve got to make that up,” Mullin said after leaving the closed-door House GOP meeting. “The Senate can’t come in below the House version as far as deficit reduction. So that makes it difficult.”

Mullin, who has been acting as his chamber’s top negotiator with SALT Republicans in the House, told reporters he expects the deduction for state and local taxes to remain at the $40,000 level negotiated in the House. But said the Senate will likely rewrite the $500,000 income ceiling to qualify for the tax deduction.

“I think 40 is a number we’re going to land on,” Mullin said. “It’s the income threshold that’s in negotiations.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said “most of us would like to make it zero.”

“I hate the idea of $40,000 but if that’s what it takes to pass the bill, I probably could do it. I would like to maybe find some other tweaks to it, somehow, like changing the income levels,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters he expects a resolution on SALT in the next 24 to 48 hours.

“I had a very successful lunch meeting with the senators. I think that we are on track,” Bessent said.

The ‘red line’ in the House

New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler told reporters following the closed-door meeting that Senate leaders shouldn’t assume whatever they pass will be accepted by the House.

“I’ve been very clear about where my red line is. So, you know, we’ll let this process play out,” Lawler said. “I think the Senate should recognize the only number that matters is 218, and 50 plus 1. That’s it. And how do you get there?”

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, so leadership cannot lose more than four votes and still approve the package, given that Democrats are universally opposed.

In the House, GOP leaders have 220 seats and need nearly every one of their members to support whatever the Senate sends back across the Capitol for it to make it to the president’s desk before their self-imposed deadline.

In addition to the SALT tax compromise, Lawler said he has concerns about how the Senate has changed other provisions, including those addressing Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower income people.

“Yeah, there are a number of concerns about decisions that they’re making,” Lawler said. “And obviously, the bill on their side is not final, so we’ll see where it goes.”

Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that crafted the tax provisions in the reconciliation bill, stood by the House’s version of the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentives. The House version extends the incentive from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for a year, while the Senate’s version makes it permanent.

The Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive was pushed by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott during the first Trump administration, which aimed to create tax cuts for businesses and real estate to invest in low-income communities, but it had mixed results.

“The tax bill that we’re going to deliver is gonna deliver for working families, small businesses and farmers,” Smith said.

Thumbs down from one House Republican

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., posted on social media that he doesn’t support how the Senate has changed the bill and that he would seek to block it from becoming law. 

“The currently proposed Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill weakens key House priorities—it doesn’t do enough to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, it backtracks on Green New Scam elimination included in the House bill, and it greatly increases the deficit – taking us even further from a balanced budget.

“If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won’t vote ‘present.’ I’ll vote NO.”

Rattlesnakes and the Senate

West Virginia Republican Sen. Jim Justice told reporters that it’s important for the Senate to take its time in its changes to the reconciliation package and that GOP lawmakers need to be patient.

“If you’re walking through the woods and you look right over there at that wall and there’s a rattlesnake all curled up there and everything, what do you do?” Justice asked. “Most people just jump and take off runnin’, well … rattlesnakes run in pairs and if you just jump left or right or behind, that one can hurt you right there.”

Rattlesnakes are typically solitary creatures, but new research has shown that rattlesnakes are more social than previously thought.

Justice said the best course of action when dealing with a rattlesnake, or two, is to stand still for a moment.

“Look to the left, look to the right, look behind you, and then decide which way you’re going,” he said. “That’s what I think we need to do (in the Senate).”

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, participates in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee says he will revamp his controversial proposal to require the sales of vast acres of federal lands in the West so it can be included in Senate Republicans’ sweeping tax and spending cut package.

Lee will be seeking approval for his revised plan from the Senate parliamentarian, who will decide if the provision complies with the chamber’s strict rules for the fast-track procedure Republicans are using to pass their bill. An earlier version of Lee’s plan was dropped from the measure.

Lee, a Utah Republican who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wrote on X on Monday night that he would alter the proposal to include only Bureau of Land Management land within 5 miles of a population center and exempt U.S. Forest Service lands altogether.

The amended version would also create “freedom zones” and protect “our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users,” Lee said.

It was not immediately clear what either point would mean and legislative text of the proposal was not publicly available Tuesday. A spokesperson for the committee Lee leads did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday morning.

The original version of the proposal would have mandated the sale of at least 2 million acres of BLM and Forest Service land in 11 Western states. The Senate parliamentarian ruled that language did not comply with the Senate’s rules for budget reconciliation, according to Senate Budget Committee ranking Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon.

Budget reconciliation is the procedure Republicans are using to pass the package that contains most of President Donald Trump’s domestic policy priorities, including extension of the 2017 tax cuts.

The process allows passage with only a simple majority in the Senate instead of the usual 60 votes but comes with strict rules that every provision has a substantial impact on the federal deficit and relates to spending and taxes.

Polarizing provision

Lee’s social media post emphasized his goal was to expand housing supply by making public lands available for new construction.

“Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up,” Lee wrote. “We need to change that.”

Democrats and some Republicans from the affected states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming — strongly opposed the measure, seeing it as a one-time sell-off of public lands used by hunters, hikers, ranchers and other users of public lands.

The provision “would have gutted America’s public lands and auctioned them off to the highest bidder, in yet another bid to benefit the wealthy,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday.

“Republicans tried to rip away hundreds of millions of acres of public land—not to help families, not to solve real problems—but to hand yet another gift to the wealthy and well-connected,” he added. “It was outrageous, it was shameless, and it would have forever changed the character of the country. Senate Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep public lands in public hands because these lands belong to everyone—not just the privileged few.”

A similar provision was removed from the House’s version of the reconciliation bill in the face of heated opposition from Western Republicans led by Montana U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke.

The former Interior secretary said last week he remained firmly opposed to the Senate version of the bill that included Lee’s proposal.

“I have said from day one I would not support a bill that sells public lands,” he wrote on X. “I am still a no on the senate reconciliation bill that sells public lands. We did our job in the House. Let’s get it finished.”

Other energy provisions stripped

Merkley reported the Senate parliamentarian also ruled several other provisions of the Energy Committee’s section of the package to be out of compliance with the “Byrd Rule,” which governs what can be included in a reconciliation bill.

Among the provisions the parliamentarian removed were items that would have waived environmental review requirements for offshore oil and gas development, mandated approval of a controversial mining road in Alaska, required annual lease sales for geothermal energy lease sales while changing how geothermal royalties are calculated and allowed natural gas exporters to pay a fee to have projects exempted from environmental requirements.

Other provisions in the committee’s reconciliation instructions were still under review Tuesday, Merkley said.

In a statement, Merkley said he would continue to lead Democrats’ campaign to strip provisions from the GOP bill.

“Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules of reconciliation in order to sell off public lands to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” he said. “We will make sure the Byrd Rule is followed and review any changes Republicans attempt to make to the bill.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Dan Caine discusses the mission details of a strike on Iran during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia.  (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Israel and Iran reached a truce in their 12-day-old war Monday, President Donald Trump said on social media.

The ceasefire will go into effect at midnight Eastern, he said.

“It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE … for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED!” Trump wrote. “Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World. During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL.

“On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, ‘THE 12 DAY WAR,’” he continued. “This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will!”

Neither Israel nor Iran immediately confirmed the agreement to cease hostilities, but Iran Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi tweeted about three hours after Trump’s post that the country’s military had stopped fighting.

“The military operations of our powerful Armed Forces to punish Israel for its aggression continued until the very last minute, at 4am,” he wrote. “Together with all Iranians, I thank our brave Armed Forces who remain ready to defend our dear country until their last drop of blood, and who responded to any attack by the enemy until the very last minute.”

There was no confirmation from Israel by late Monday Eastern time.

Trump’s announcement came just hours after Iran fired missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar in retaliation for weekend strikes on nuclear facilities. The missiles were shot down without causing any casualties, Trump wrote.

Iran alerted U.S. leaders before the strike, Trump said, in an apparent effort to minimize casualties — a signal of de-escalation that Trump appeared ready to accept.

“Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered,” Trump wrote Monday afternoon. “There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was ‘set free,’ because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done.

“Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their ‘system,’ and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Iran’s counterattack had been anticipated.

“This is the retaliation that was expected,” the Louisiana Republican told reporters in the Capitol, in a video posted to social media by CNN. “So far, so good. No casualties.”

No briefings in advance for Dems

Despite Trump’s description of the “obliteration” of Iranian nuclear facilities, it was unclear Monday how damaged the country’s nuclear program was following the U.S. bombing of three major nuclear enrichment facilities on Saturday, U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said at a Monday press conference.

The New York Democrat said he had not been briefed by the administration ahead of the operation, receiving only a “courtesy call” from the White House that strikes were imminent.

A classified briefing with the so-called Gang of Eight — the Republican and Democratic floor leaders and top members of the Intelligence Committee in each chamber of Congress — is scheduled for Tuesday, he said.

“We’ve seen no evidence to justify (the administration’s) offensive strike in Iran, and we also don’t even know how effective the strike has been,” Jeffries said. “There’s zero evidence that I’ve seen that the nuclear program was completely and totally obliterated, as Donald Trump has claimed, no evidence that has been presented to Congress to suggest that that has occurred. Let’s see what happens at the classified briefing tomorrow.”

Jeffries strongly opposed Trump’s intervention in the war between Iran and Israel without first gaining support of Congress.

But he sidestepped questions about whether the decision was an impeachable offense or if he would support a bipartisan resolution to restrain the president’s power to wage war in Iran.

“The use of military force which is offensive in nature must be approved by the House and the Senate,” he said. “That’s according to the Constitution. It’s not optional, Donald.”

War powers resolution

Jeffries said he had “not taken a look at” the resolution sponsored by Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie and California Democrat Ro Khanna. Due to rules changes under the House GOP majority, consideration of the resolution cannot be forced immediately, he said.

Massie said Monday the resolution had 57 cosponsors in the House.

Johnson said he would not support the resolution.

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate time for a war powers resolution,” Johnson said. “And I don’t think it’s necessary.”

New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and other members of Jeffries’ caucus have suggested impeaching Trump over his use of military force without approval from Congress.

Asked if Democrats would pursue impeachment if they win back the majority in the 2026 mid-term elections, Jeffries indicated that would not be his first step.

“A tool that’s on the table right now is to continue to demand that the administration present itself before the United States Congress and make a case to the American people as to why this extraordinary step has been taken,” he said. “That’s step one. Step two is for the war powers resolution to be debated on the House floor, as should have occurred already, and then we’ll see where we’re at thereafter.” 

A B-2 Stealth Bomber performs a fly over before the NFL game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium on Sept. 5, 2024 in Kansas City, Missouri. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday night that the United States has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran, and all U.S. planes were outside Iran and on their way back to the United States.

“A short time ago the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” Trump said in brief televised remarks from the White House just after 10 p.m. Eastern.

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror,” he said. “Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

Flanked by Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump said he hoped the strikes would be the extent of the U.S. offensive in Iran, but he warned he would authorize attacks on other targets if Iran did not end the war.

“Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,” he said. “If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.”

Trump had first announced the strikes roughly two hours earlier on social media.

“All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he wrote.

Several U.S. House Democrats questioned the legality of the bombing.

“President Trump has no constitutional authority to take us to war with Iran without authorization from Congress, and Congress has not authorized it,” Don Beyer, a House Democrat from Virginia, wrote on X.

Earlier Saturday, there had been numerous reports that B-2 bombers had been sent from Whiteman Air Force Base in Johnson County, Missouri, and were flying across the Pacific Ocean. Department of Defense leaders said at a Sunday morning press conference that those bombers were decoys, “a deception effort known only to an extremely small number of planners and key leaders here in Washington and in Tampa,” said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine. “The main strike package comprised of 7 B-2 spirit bombers, each with two crew members, proceeded quietly to the east with minimal communications. “

Trump returned to the White House at about 6 p.m. Eastern on Saturday from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., to attend a national security meeting at the White House.

The attack on the Iran sites supports a key U.S. ally, Israel, while distancing another foreign policy priority for the Trump administration, a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear development.

“I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump said at the White House, referring to the Israeli prime minister.

Trump has repeatedly said Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

GOP backs Trump

Republican lawmakers in national security roles quickly weighed in on social media and in statements Saturday to support Trump’s decision.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a statement: “The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs’ misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped. As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

“Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate—and correct—decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,” U.S. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., wrote on X. “We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You’re the best!”

House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, an Arkansas Republican, blamed Iran for the conflict.

“As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point,” he wrote on X. “That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line—articulated by Presidents of both parties for decades—was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who is not always aligned with Trump, also praised the move.

“Thank you to our brave service members who executed this mission,” he said. “The world will be safer if Iran’s nuclear capability is destroyed. I look forward to briefings in the coming days.”

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian who is often at odds with his party leadership, expressed his opposition in a Saturday night social media post.

“This is not Constitutional,” he wrote.

Democrats react

Immediate reaction from Democrats was mixed.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman called the move “the correct decision,” adding that “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

But members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus raised the issue of congressional authorization and called for a vote on a privileged resolution sponsored by California Democrat Ro Khanna and Massie that would block military force against Iran.

“Donald Trump illegally took military action against Iran—without congressional authorization—risking dragging us into another endless war,” Arizona Democrat Yassamin Ansari wrote. “I am calling for an immediate emergency session of Congress to vote on the War Powers Resolution.”

“Instead of listening to the American people, Trump is listening to War Criminal Netanyahu, who lied about Iraq and is lying once again about Iran,” Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib wrote. “Congress must act immediately to exert its war powers and stop this unconstitutional act of war.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, was sharply critical.

“Donald Trump promised to bring peace to the Middle East. He has failed to deliver on that promise. The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harm’s way,” Jeffries said in a statement.

“President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

He said Congress must immediately be briefed in a classified setting.

Warning from Iran

Israel began bombing what it said were Iranian nuclear facilities last week, scuttling U.S. negotiations with Iran, which Trump repeated again Wednesday had been close.

In a statement issued through a spokesman on state-run TV Wednesday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the U.S. not to get involved.

“Any form of U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be met with irreparable harm,” the statement said, according to a BBC translation.

Prior to the announcement, congressional Republicans were generally supportive of an aggressive posture toward Iran.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, told reporters at the Capitol that Iran’s nuclear program was meant to threaten the United States.

“When the Ayatollah chants ‘Death to America,’ I believe him,” Cruz said, referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “So does President Trump, and that’s why, as commander-in chief, he is acting decisively to keep America safe.”

The potential of a nuclear Iran has animated U.S. policy debates about the region for more than a decade.

In his first term, Trump withdrew from a deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama’s administration that lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for limiting its nuclear development.

Iran and Hamas

Iran and Israel have not had diplomatic relations since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and each has been a primary antagonist in the other’s foreign policy.

Israel has long prioritized denying Iran a nuclear weapon. Iran has funded Hamas, the militant group that launched the October 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the ongoing war in Gaza, and Hezbollah, a militant group in Lebanon.

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst raised Iran’s support for Hamas at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week, using it as a rationale for U.S. involvement in the region.

“Who is the primary funder of Hamas?” the Iowa Republican asked Hegseth.

Hegseth answered Iran.

“Forty-three Americans lost their lives on Oct. 7 at the hands of Hamas,” Ernst continued. “So when there is a question about whether it’s appropriate for America to be engaged in the Middle East, in defending Americans that live and work abroad, I think there’s our answer.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

California National Guard members stand guard at an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building on June 13, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.  (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Vice President J.D. Vance took a victory lap to Los Angeles Friday, following a federal appeals court’s ruling that the administration could retain control of the California National Guard troops responding to protests earlier this month over immigration raids in the city.

“BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President’s core power to call in the National Guard!” President Donald Trump wrote on social media following the decision.

Vance was scheduled to visit an FBI building being used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, meet with law enforcement leadership and U.S. Marines and deliver remarks, according to a White House release Friday morning.

The trip was announced about 12 hours after the administration’s win at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that Trump could keep control of the 4,000 National Guard troops he’d ordered to Los Angeles.

Three judges on the appeals court issued a unanimous opinion Thursday evening that courts had to afford the president wide discretion to decide when a state National Guard can be federalized, leaving command in Trump’s hands while California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit challenging the deployment is ongoing. The case has been closely watched by leaders of states around the country.

The order overturns a lower court’s ruling that Trump return control of the troops to Newsom, a Democrat who opposed sending the National Guard to Los Angeles. Newsom has said the Guard troops’ presence has only inflamed tensions between anti-ICE protesters and law enforcement.

The president has the authority to deploy troops to a state with or without the governor’s consent, the panel of appeals judges said Thursday.

The state’s “concerns have more bearing on the question of whether the President should have federalized the California National Guard, not whether he had the authority to do so,” the panel, made up of two judges appointed by Trump and one by former Democratic President Joe Biden, wrote.

They opted to revoke the district court’s temporary restraining order, reasoning that the federal government stood a good chance of ultimately prevailing on the case.

Quelling rebellion, enforcing laws

Attorneys for the state had argued in federal court that Trump’s order was invalid because he did not show the conditions that the statute Trump cited, Section 12406 of U.S. Code Title X, required for federalization of a National Guard had been met and because the order was sent to the California National Guard adjutant general, not to Newsom himself.

The 9th Circuit panel rejected both arguments.

Based on the language of the statute alone, the judges might have required greater support for the federal government’s position, which may have helped California’s case, the order said.

But under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the president only must meet a low standard to show that deployment is warranted to enforce laws or quell a rebellion, the judges wrote in language that resembled what Judge Jennifer Sung, the Biden appointee, said during oral arguments Tuesday.

“We are not writing on a blank slate,” they wrote. “The history of Congress’s statutory delegations of its calling forth power, and a line of cases …  interpreting those delegations, strongly suggest that our review of the President’s determinations in this context is especially deferential.”

The federal government’s evidence that protesters had thrown rocks and other objects at ICE officers, vandalized federal property and attacked vans used by ICE was enough to satisfy that standard, the judges wrote.

Trump quickly took to social media. “The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,” Trump wrote.

In amicus briefs in the case, Democratic state leaders have said they see Trump’s use of the National Guard as a threat to their ability to use their Guards for state-level functions, including drug interdiction and natural disaster relief.

Some reviewability

The opinion did, however, reject the U.S. Justice Department’s argument that a president’s federalization order could never be questioned in court.

In a statement, Newsom praised that aspect of the ruling and pledged to “press forward” with the case.

“The court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,” Newsom said. “The President is not a king and is not above the law.”

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer canceled oral arguments at a previously scheduled Friday morning hearing in the trial court, after the 9th Circuit order.

Breyer anticipated that the state may pursue a challenge based on a potential violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement, and asked each side to file a brief by noon Pacific time on June 23 arguing whether the trial court or appeals court should first hear that issue.

Demonstrators protest outside a downtown jail in Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A federal appeals court late Thursday quickly froze a lower court’s order that President Donald Trump return command of 4,000 California National Guard troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom and set a schedule to more fully hear the closely watched case in the coming days.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued a one-page order pausing implementation of U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s order issued just hours earlier that called for Trump to relinquish control of the National Guard by noon Friday.

The panel asked the state to file a written brief by 9 a.m. Pacific time Sunday and scheduled oral arguments for Tuesday.

The short 9th Circuit order did not explain the panel’s rationale for granting an administrative stay of Breyer’s order.

The Trump administration appealed and asked for the stay shortly after Breyer issued his ruling Thursday evening. Breyer said the mobilization was illegal and there were limits to Trump’s statutory authority.

Breyer’s order was “an extraordinary intrusion on the President’s constitutional authority as Commander in Chief to call forth the National Guard as necessary to protect federal officials, as well as his statutory authority … to mobilize state National Guards into federal service to quell riotous mobs committing crimes against federal personnel and property and to protect federal officials’ ability to enforce federal law,” the administration said. “The order also puts federal officers in harms’ way every minute that it is in place.”

The state opposed the request for a stay, saying Breyer’s “extensive reasoning” had shown the state would be irreparably harmed without court intervention.

Trump called up the state National Guard on Sunday in response to protests in Los Angeles over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. Newsom opposed the deployment, saying it would only make the situation more volatile.

It was the first time in 60 years that a president called up a state’s National Guard over the objection of the governor.

California sued the administration to block the federalization, arguing that the president unlawfully took control of the state National Guard.

Breyer took the state’s side in his Thursday evening order, saying Trump violated the 10th Amendment to the Constitution that protects states’ rights.

Union members and supporters rally in Grand Park calling for the release of union leader David Huerta, who was arrested during an immigration enforcement action on June 9, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

A federal judge in California late Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to relinquish command of 4,000 National Guard troops the president called to help contain Los Angeles protests over immigration raids.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Trump’s mobilization of the National Guard was illegal, and ordered the return of control to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had opposed the deployment. He said his order would go into effect noon Pacific time Friday, likely setting up an emergency appeal by the administration.

Trump’s “actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

He issued the 36-page order mere hours after an afternoon hearing at which he appeared skeptical that Trump’s order was lawful.

Breyer at the hearing appeared not to accept the Trump administration’s argument that obtaining consent from Newsom, a Democrat, was not a prerequisite to federalize the California National Guard.

Newsom has been backed up by Democratic attorneys general across the nation in the closely watched case.

Breyer noted the law Trump cited when mobilizing the troops requires the order to go through a state’s governor, but Trump’s order bypassed Newsom and went directly to the adjutant general of the California National Guard.

“I’m trying to figure out how something is through somebody if, in fact, you didn’t give it to him, you actually sent it to the adjutant general,” Breyer said. “It would be the first time I’ve ever seen something going through somebody if it never went to them directly.”

‘A constitutional government and King George’

U.S. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, who argued for the administration, said Newsom’s approval was not necessary for the commander-in-chief to call National Guard troops into service.

“There’s no consultation requirement, pre-approval requirement,” he said. “The governor is merely a conduit. He’s not a roadblock. The president doesn’t have to call up the governor, invite them to Camp David, ‘Let’s have a summit, negotiate for a week about what are the terms that we’re going to call up the National Guard in your state, what are the terms of the deployment?’”

The president alone can determine whether the conditions allowing for the federalization of the National Guard are met, Shumate said.

But Breyer, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the president faced more limits on his authority than Shumate had argued.

“That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” Breyer said.

Nicholas Green, who argued on behalf of the state, called the federal government’s argument “breathtaking in scope,” in part because the troops appear to be assisting in domestic law enforcement.

“They are saying, Your Honor, that the president, by fiat, can federalize the National Guard and deploy it in the streets of a civilian city whenever he perceives that there is disobedience to an order,” Green told Breyer. “That is an expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power.”

Breyer seemed less opposed to Trump’s order to deploy 700 U.S. Marines to the area, noting those troops are not yet on the ground in Los Angeles and, as federal troops, were already under Trump’s command without needing to satisfy any other criteria.

Breyer’s order Thursday night did not direct any action regarding the Marines.

Pause requested

The judge, who is the brother of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, said he would rule quickly, possibly late Thursday, on California’s request for a restraining order to stop the deployment in Los Angeles.

Shuman requested that, if Breyer found in favor of the state, he should pause any restraining order while the federal government appeals.

Green said the state would “strongly oppose” such a pause because of the urgency of the situation in Los Angeles.

The city has seen days of protests starting on Friday over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on workplaces. Trump ordered the National Guard to the area on Sunday, saying it was necessary to restore order.

Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass objected to the decision and have said it has caused more chaos and inflamed tensions.

Democrats’ amicus brief

The hearing on California’s request for an injunction came a day after 21 Democratic attorneys general and the Democratic governor of Kansas filed an amicus brief in the case backing up California.

Trump wresting control of a state National Guard sets a dangerous precedent that undermines National Guard missions, they said.

“National Guard troops fight fires, respond to hurricanes, protect their residents from flooding, and provide much-needed security,” they wrote. “By undermining states’ authority, unlawfully deploying the National Guard troops, and leaving the door wide open to deploy the Guards of every state, the President has made us all less safe. This Court should enjoin the federal government from continuing down this unlawful and perilous path.”

In addition to Kansas Gov. Laura Kelley, the attorneys general of Washington, Delaware, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin and Rhode Island signed the brief.

President Donald Trump signs a Congressional Review Act resolution Thursday, with congressional Republicans looking on. Left to right are Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Rep. John Joyce of Pennsylvania, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, Rep. John James of Michigan, House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. (Screeenshot from White House webcast)

President Donald Trump signed a Congressional Review Act resolution Thursday that revokes California’s authority to set tailpipe emissions standards, upending policy in California and 17 other states that tie their standards to that of the Golden State.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Democratic attorneys general in 10 other states immediately sued to block enforcement of the law. Through a process that allows Congress to undo recent executive branch rules, the law repeals a U.S. Environmental Protection Act waiver allowing California to set a schedule for emissions standards for cars and trucks.

Trump signed two other resolutions that repeal the state’s authority to ban sales of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 and to regulate emissions on heavy trucks.

At a White House signing ceremony, Trump said the law would allow greater consumer choice and lead to less expensive vehicles.

“Your cars are going to cost you $3,000, $4,000 less and you’re going to have what you want,” he said. “Again, you can get any car you want.”

Simple majority vote

The procedure used to pass the law was controversial because of the use of the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, which allows a simple majority vote in the U.S. Senate instead of the chamber’s usual 60-vote threshold.

Both the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the EPA waiver was not a rule and that the CRA could not be used. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune used the procedure anyway, and the measure passed 51-46.

The states suing over the law argued that process was illegal, saying that the CRA was “deemed inapplicable by every nonpartisan arbiter and expert who analyzed the question.”

“While all fifty States consented—through their Senators—to these expedited procedures for congressional disapproval of federal rules, no State consented to the CRA as a means for Congress to negate state rules,” the Democratic attorneys general wrote. “Nor would any State have done so.”

The states joining California in the lawsuit are Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Vermont and Washington.

Clean Air Act

The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 generally prohibits states from setting their own air quality standards. But a section of the bedrock environmental law allows California, which had stringent environmental standards at the time the federal law was passed, to set its own standards.

While the other 49 states may not set their own standards, any state can adopt California’s standards as its own.

That means the law Trump signed Thursday has effects far beyond California’s borders, which the president noted.

“The federal government gave left-wing radicals in California dictatorial powers to control the future of the entire car industry, all over the country, all over the world, actually,” he said.

The law, which both chambers of Congress passed last month, applies to 17 states that follow California standards. In addition to those suing, those states are Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies before the House Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee at the U.S. Capitol on June 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Tuesday was the first time Hegseth testified before Congress since his confirmation hearings in January.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles will cost the federal government about $134 million, a Pentagon budget official said Tuesday, as the response to the protests further divided officials in California and Washington, D.C.

The situation in the country’s second-largest city captured the attention of lawmakers in the nation’s capital, even as the Republican-led Congress charted a path forward for the Trump-backed tax and spending cut bill.

Democrats in Congress on Tuesday warned the administration’s actions bordered on authoritarianism, while President Donald Trump said his intervention saved the city from destruction.

“If we didn’t send in the National Guard quickly, right now, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground,” Trump said in the Oval Office Tuesday.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, meanwhile, sought a restraining order blocking the 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 U.S. Marines deployed to Los Angeles from assisting with domestic law enforcement. Trump ordered the troops to the city over Newsom’s and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass’ objections.

Budget question

Democrats on Capitol Hill criticized the administration over several aspects of the deployment, saying Trump was instigating violence, overstepping his authority and wasting taxpayer money.

At a previously scheduled Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing, Democratic Reps. Betty McCollum of Minnesota and Pete Aguillar of California asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the financial cost of placing 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines in Los Angeles.

Hegseth, who is originally from Minnesota, declined to answer McCollum’s question directly, instead invoking the riots in Minneapolis following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020 and saying Trump sought to avoid similar chaos in Los Angeles.

“President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Gov. (Tim) Walz, if it gets out of control, it’s a bad situation for the citizens of any location,” he said.

When Aguillar asked a similar question about cost, Hegseth deferred to acting Pentagon comptroller Bryn MacDonnell, who estimated the current cost at $134 million, mainly for housing, travel and food. That money came out of existing operations and maintenance accounts, she said.

Hegseth told the panel the deployment was authorized for 60 days.

Just 2 miles away at the White House, though, Trump implied the decision could be more open-ended, saying during the Oval Office event that troops would stay in Los Angeles “until there’s no danger.”

“When there’s no danger, they’ll leave,” he said.

Restraining order

California’s federal lawsuit challenging the deployment, which state leaders filed Monday, includes a request for the court to issue a restraining order by 1 p.m. Pacific time Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer did not issue such an order by that deadline.

The administration intended to use the military personnel “to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” the request for a restraining order said.

“These unlawful deployments have already proven to be a deeply inflammatory and unnecessary provocation, anathema to our laws limiting the use (of) federal forces for law enforcement, rather than a means of restoring calm,” the state said.

“Federal antagonization, through the presence of soldiers in the streets, has already caused real and irreparable damage to the City of Los Angeles, the people who live there, and the State of California. They must be stopped, immediately.”

Democrats in California’s congressional delegation and members of the congressional caucuses for Black, Hispanic and Asian and Pacific Islander Democrats also blasted the administration’s role in inflaming the standoff between protesters and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who’d conducted recent raids on workplaces in the area.

“President Trump’s unlawful decision to deploy the National Guard onto the streets of Los Angeles is a reckless and inflammatory escalation, one designed not to restore calm, but to provoke chaos,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette D. Clarke said at a press conference.

“Let’s be clear about how this began: with peaceful protests sparked by the unlawful and inhumane targeting, detention and deportation of our immigrant neighbors.”

Clarke, a New York Democrat, said in response to a reporter’s question that she believed the sending in of troops constituted an impeachable act by Trump.

“I definitely believe it is, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” she said.

‘Met with force’

Other Democrats on Capitol Hill have said Monday and Tuesday that Trump engineered the conflict to distract from unpopular provisions of Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” and other issues.

“Donald Trump, cornered by his own failures – from pushing a heartless bill that would rip health care away from 16 million Americans, to raising costs from his reckless tariffs, to waging war with Elon Musk – Trump is desperately seeking a distraction,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said on the floor Tuesday.

“His order to deploy the National Guard and Marines – our own troops – on Americans is not just outrageous and provocative, it’s a dangerous authoritarian overreach that threatens the very fabric of our democracy.”

Rep. Jimmy Gomez led a press conference of California’s U.S. House Democrats Tuesday where he warned that the militarization in Los Angeles could happen elsewhere.

“If it can happen in Los Angeles, it can happen in any state in the union,” he said.

Later, at the Oval Office, Trump said protesters at his military parade on Saturday would be “met with very strong force.”

‘Tarred and feathered’

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Trump acted responsibly to protect Southern Californians and blamed Newsom for “failed leadership” that he said led to the clash this weekend.

Asked if, as Trump and White House border czar Tom Homan have suggested, Newsom should be arrested for interfering with immigration enforcement, Johnson initially demurred before suggesting an 18th-century punishment.

“I’m not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“But he ought to be tarred and feathered… He’s standing in the way of the administration and the carrying out of federal law. Right? He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of the good guys. He is trying to — he’s a participant, an accomplice — in our federal law enforcement agents being not just disrespected but assaulted.”

Johnson said House Republicans were fully behind Trump’s actions and deflected a question about if there was a point at which he would oppose the administration’s efforts.

“He is fully within his authority right now to do what he is doing,” Johnson said. “We have to maintain order.”

Demonstrators protest outside a downtown jail in Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump called for California Gov. Gavin Newsom to be arrested Monday and dispatched Marines to Los Angeles, shortly after Trump’s mobilization this weekend of California National Guard troops to quell protests without the governor’s consent.

Protests of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ activity in Los Angeles sparked a weekend of conflict between protesters and federal agents downtown and in nearby Paramount, California. Newsom on Monday said California is suing the administration over the violation of its state sovereignty.

Trump told reporters on the White House South Lawn that he endorsed the idea of White House border czar Tom Homan arresting Newsom. Homan had said elected officials could be arrested for impeding raids by ICE agents.

Newsom on Sunday challenged Homan, saying, “Come after me, arrest me, let’s get it over with, tough guy.”

“I’d do it if I were Tom,” Trump said when asked if Homan should arrest Newsom. “I think it’s great. Gavin likes the publicity…. He’s done a terrible job. I like Gavin Newsom, he’s a nice guy but he’s grossly incompetent, everybody knows.”

Newsom, a Democrat, has framed the conflict with the White House as a fundamental test of every state’s ability to self-govern.

“This is a preview for things to come,” he told the progressive podcast host Brian Tyler Cohen in a clip the governor’s X account shared Monday morning. “This isn’t about LA, per se. It’s about us today. It’s about you, everyone watching, tomorrow. I promise you. I mean, this guy is unhinged. Donald Trump is unhinged right now.”

Marines deploying

About 700 U.S. Marines will travel to Los Angeles as part of the federal response, according to the U.S. military, with the objective of “protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area.” CNN first reported the Marines’ mobilization. The move could further aggravate the state-federal tension surrounding the protests.

That deployment followed Sunday’s mobilization by Trump of 2,000 California National Guard members, even as Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass vocally objected, saying the troops’ presence would only inflame the situation.

It marked the first time since 1965 — when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights protesters — that a president deployed the National Guard to a state over the governor’s objections.

Trump has also not ruled out invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act to take greater operational control of the situation. He and allies have referred to the protesters as “insurrectionists” several times.

He told reporters Sunday night that he was not invoking the act, which allows the president to use the military domestically, saying a decision to do so would depend “on whether or not there’s an insurrection.” On Monday, he said “insurrectionists” were causing problems in California.

According to CalMatters, “protesters on Sunday faced off with police officers who fired dozens of less-lethal rounds attempting to disperse people in the streets surrounding the 300 North Los Angeles Federal Building.

“At least two self-driving vehicles were set on fire near the protest, and police continued to pepper the rally with rubber bullets well into the late afternoon.”

Law and order

Trump, who took hours on Jan. 6, 2021, to implore his supporters storming the U.S. Capitol to disperse, and later pardoned hundreds of people charged with crimes that day, has said repeatedly controlling the California protests is necessary to protect ICE agents and Californians from protesters.

Trump has called “law and order” a top priority and has floated extreme methods to preserve order.

Asked Sunday about what the bar should be for sending U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, he responded, “The bar is what I think it is.”

On X, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested Marines could be used in the situation.

“The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,” he posted Sunday.

State sovereignty at issue

Newsom and other Democrats have called the deployment of National Guard troops a violation of state sovereignty.

Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta said they’d filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the move on 10th Amendment grounds. The Constitution’s 10th Amendment protects states’ rights.

“Donald Trump is creating fear and terror by failing to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and overstepping his authority. This is a manufactured crisis to allow him to take over a state militia, damaging the very foundation of our republic,” said Newsom in a written statement announcing the suit.

“Every governor, red or blue, should reject this outrageous overreach. This is beyond incompetence — this is him intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities, and endangering the principles of our great democracy. It is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism. We will not let this stand.”

A copy of the lawsuit was not immediately available Monday.

Newsom won backing from his Democratic colleagues across the country, including a Sunday statement from the Democratic Governors Association, a political group that includes every blue-state governor in the country.

“President Trump’s move to deploy California’s National Guard is an alarming abuse of power,” the governors said. “Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guard and the federal government activating them in their own borders without consulting or working with a state’s governor is ineffective and dangerous. Further, threatening to send the U.S. Marines into American neighborhoods undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.”

Republican governors saw the issue differently, backing Trump and praising his approach to law enforcement.

“Every Democrat governor just endorsed lawlessness and chaos on American streets,” the RGA said on social media in response to the DGA statement.

Republicans in Congress broadcast similar messages, describing the deployment as a step toward law and order.

“If Gavin Newsom won’t enforce the law, President Trump will,” Oklahoma U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin wrote on X.

Billionaire and SpaceX owner Elon Musk said in an interview with CBS News that he was “disappointed” in the U.S. House GOP’s massive legislative package of tax cuts, border funding and more of President Donald Trump’s domestic policy priorities. (Photo courtesy of CBS Sunday Morning)

Elon Musk says in an interview excerpt that he was “disappointed” in the U.S. House GOP’s massive legislative package of tax cuts, border funding and more of President Donald Trump’s domestic policy priorities, telling CBS News the bill would undermine the work of his U.S. DOGE Service to cut government spending.

The interview, a portion of which was published Tuesday evening as a preview of this weekend’s edition of “CBS Sunday Morning,” marks the first public rift between Musk, the world’s richest man and a major funder of Trump’s 2024 campaign, and the president who gave him an influential position in his second White House stint.

After a day of news reports on Musk’s criticism of the bill Trump has championed Musk tweeted Wednesday evening he was officially leaving his White House role. Musk’s social media posts in recent weeks appeared to show he’d shifted his attention back to his private-sector interests. 

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk wrote Wednesday. “The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

During the closing days of the presidential campaign, Musk said he could find $2 trillion per year in the federal budget to cut.

The legislation that Trump has promoted as the “big, beautiful bill” works against the goals Musk set as he spearheaded the Department of Government Efficiency that sought to slash the size of the federal workforce, Musk said.

“I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk said.  “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”

GOP bill cuts Medicaid, adds to deficit

The U.S. House narrowly passed the 1,100-page bill last week with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. Senate Republicans are planning to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass the bill without subjecting it to the chamber’s usual 60-vote threshold for legislation.

The measure includes an extension of the 2017 tax cuts, changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that are expected to reduce federal spending on benefits by nearly $1 trillion over a decade, and increased funding for Defense Department and border security initiatives.

The House’s bill would add $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Musk and Republicans who wish to downsize the federal government have called for taking actions based on DOGE’s recommendations.

Trump ‘not happy about certain aspects’

Asked about Musk’s comments during an Oval Office event Wednesday, Trump praised the work of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and noted the slim majorities in both chambers.

He also touted the tax cuts included in the bill, but conceded he was “not happy about certain aspects of” the bill — although the administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting it and saying Trump would sign it into law.

“But I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” he said. “That’s the way they go. It’s very big. It’s the big, beautiful bill. But the beautiful is because of all of the things we have. The biggest thing being, I would say, the level of tax cutting that we’re going to be doing.”

Johnson, who spent weeks negotiating with disparate factions of his conference to win passage of the measure, attempted to soothe Musk’s concerns in a Wednesday post to X, which Musk owns.

The Louisiana Republican praised Musk’s work while promising spending cuts would come in bills that are outside the budget reconciliation process: annual appropriations bills and a recissions package that takes away unspent money from previous appropriations laws.

“@ElonMusk and the entire @DOGE team have done INCREDIBLE work exposing waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government,” Johnson wrote. “The House is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings so we can deliver even more cuts to big government that President Trump wants and the American people demand.”

New plan for billions in cuts said to be on the way

Johnson echoed a post from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who said the rules around budget reconciliation made it difficult to cut significant chunks of discretionary spending, which is separate from the major cuts projected to hit the mandatory Medicaid and SNAP programs.

The administration is planning to send to House Republicans next week a proposal to rescind $9.4 billion in federal spending, according to a Wednesday report in Politico that cited unnamed House Republican and administration sources. The report was published after the Musk comments appeared on CBS News’ website.

On X, Johnson said the annual appropriations bills, which Congress began formal work on this month with department heads appearing at subcommittee hearings, would also provide spending cuts.

Appropriators, though, have cautioned against the aggressive cuts sought by the administration.

Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that writes the funding bill for environmental programs, told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum the panel would likely fund his department above what the administration request.

Burgum said he would comply with whatever spending amount Congress approves.

 

 

At a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida, SNAP recipients were able to use their Electronic Benefits Transfer cards for food. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).

The massive tax and spending bill passed by U.S. House Republicans would likely result in 3.2 million people losing food assistance benefits, and saddle states with around $14 billion a year in costs, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats have argued the bill, which the House passed, 215-214 early Thursday without any Democrats in support, would cut programs for the needy to fund tax breaks for high earners.

The CBO document, issued late Thursday, responded to a request to the office from the top Democrats on the Senate and House Agriculture committees, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Angie Craig, both of Minnesota, and somewhat bolsters that claim. The panels oversee federal food aid programs.

“This report is truly devastating,” Craig said in a Friday statement to States Newsroom. “As a mother and someone who at times relied on food assistance as a child, these numbers are heartbreaking. It is infuriating that Republicans in Congress are willing to make our children go hungry so they can give tax breaks to the already rich.”

A provision in the bill to tighten work requirements, including by excluding single parents of children older than 6 and by raising the age of adults to whom the work requirements apply, of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, would result in 3.2 million people losing access to the program in an average month, the CBO report said.

Of those, 1.4 million would be people who currently have a state waiver from work requirements that would be disallowed under the bill and 800,000 would be adults who live with children 7 or older, the report said.

In a Friday statement, Ben Nichols, a spokesman for the House Agriculture Committee led by Pennsylvania Republican Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, said the proposed change would be more fair to the people SNAP is supposed to help and noted the program is the only state-administered entitlement program that is paid fully by the federal government.

“No one who is able-bodied and working, volunteering, or training for 20 hours a week will lose benefits,” Nichols wrote.

Republicans want to use the legislative package to extend the 2017 tax law and its cuts, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.

Toll on states

The cost-share changes, which would require states for the first time to pay for a portion of SNAP benefits, would also limit participation and add a massive line item to state budgets, according to the CBO.

Starting in 2028, states would be responsible for paying 5% to 25% of SNAP benefits, with a state’s share rising with its payment error rate. The federal government currently pays for all SNAP benefits.

Under the House bill, which will likely undergo substantial changes as the Senate considers it in the coming weeks, states collectively would be responsible for just less than $100 billion from 2028 to 2034, about $14 billion per year.

States would respond in a variety of ways, CBO Director Phillip Swagel wrote, including potentially dropping out of the program.

“CBO expects that some states would maintain current benefits and eligibility and others would modify benefits or eligibility or possibly leave the program altogether because of the increased costs,” he wrote.

The office took a “probabilistic approach to account for a range of possible outcomes” to determine what the effect on households would be and estimated that 1.3 million people would lose benefits because of state responses to the new cost-share.

Nichols, with the House Agriculture Committee, disputed the CBO’s estimate regarding the cost share change. The lowest state cost-share of 5% would be available for states with error rates below 6%. Every state has hit that mark at some point in the last decade, he said.

With that favorable of a cost-share, the Republican committee members did not believe states would drop out of the program, he added.

“We reject the hypothetical assumption that some states may not chip into 5 percent of a supplemental nutrition program,” Nichols wrote. “Every state is capable of paying for a portion SNAP… Federal policy should encourage states to administer the SNAP program more efficiently and effectively, and this bill does just that.” 

CBO’s forecasters determined the impacts of the work requirements and cost-share provisions separately, meaning some people potentially losing benefits could have been counted in both categories.

Move to the Senate

The House vote Thursday sent the measure to the Senate, where the debate over SNAP benefits may fall along similar party lines.

Republicans who hold control in that chamber are planning to employ the budget reconciliation process, which allows them to skirt the Senate’s usual 60-vote requirement for legislation.

During the House Agriculture Committee’s debate over its portion of the legislation, Republicans on the panel said the work requirement and state cost-share measures were needed reforms to SNAP that would protect the program for those it was meant to serve, while limiting the costs associated with benefits to adults who were able and unwilling to work or in the country illegally.

In a Friday statement, Sara Lasure, a spokeswoman for Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, also said the panel would seek reforms to the program but did not offer specifics.

“The Senate Agriculture Committee is in the process of crafting its budget reconciliation package and will work as good stewards of taxpayer dollars to make commonsense reforms to SNAP that encourage employment,” she wrote in an email.

Klobuchar, in a statement after House passage Thursday, blasted the House bill and indicated she would oppose efforts to cut SNAP benefits.

“House Republicans are pulling the rug out from under millions of families by taking away federal assistance to put food on the table,” she said. “They’re doing that even as President Trump’s tariff taxes raise food prices by more than $200 for the average family, all to fund more tax breaks for the wealthy. That’s so very wrong —and we will fight against it in the Senate.”

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.”

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.”

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.

A “SNAP welcomed here” sign is seen at the entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland, Oregon. (Getty Images)

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved, 29-25, Wednesday evening its portion of Republicans’ major legislative package that includes a provision that would shift to states some of the responsibility to pay for a major nutrition assistance program.

The bill would require states, for the first time, to cover part of the cost of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits that provide $100 billion per year to help 42 million Americans afford groceries. The measure would also shift more of the administrative cost to states and increase work requirements for recipients.

Republicans are planning to combine the measure with legislation from 10 other committees in a budget reconciliation package that allows the Senate to avoid its usual 60-vote threshold.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson said the panel’s bill and its estimated $290 billion deficit savings over a 10-year budget window were necessary for the larger legislative package to extend tax cuts and increase border security and defense spending.

 The package would “prevent the largest tax increase in American history on our families, farmers and small businesses, and (would) deliver critical funding necessary for the Trump administration to continue their work keeping Americans safe,” the Pennsylvania Republican said in an opening statement.

“Our reconciliation instructions provide the opportunity to restore integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to make sure that this essential program works for the most vulnerable and functions as Congress has intended.”

Republicans on the panel said throughout a marathon committee meeting, which started Tuesday night and wrapped up more than 26 hours later following an overnight break, that the added work requirements and accountability measures for state governments were overdue reforms.

The panel’s GOP majority approved the bill over unified opposition from Democrats, who argued that the measure would unfairly cut benefits to needy families to pay for tax cuts for high earners, undermine the panel’s bipartisan tradition of fusing crop subsidies with nutrition assistance and overburden state governments that can’t afford to take on the additional cost.

Ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota called the measure “the largest rollback of an anti-hunger program in our nation’s history” which would be felt deeply across a broad swath of recipients.

“We will see children going to bed without dinner, more seniors skipping meals to afford their medicine, more parents sacrificing their own nutrition, so their kids can eat,” Craig said. “Every single one of us knows (the cuts) will take food away from families at a time when working folks are struggling with higher costs.”

State contributions

The bill would make states pay for up to 25% of SNAP benefits, which are currently entirely covered by the federal government, starting in 2028.

States would be required to pay at least 5%, with the rate rising with a state’s payment error rate. The highest state cost-share would be triggered by a state reaching a 10% or higher error rate.

Even at the lowest state cost-share, the provision would add $4.7 billion overall to annual state obligations, according to an analysis published Wednesday by the center-left think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

But only seven states would have qualified for the lowest cost-share in fiscal 2023, the most recent year for which data is available. The national error rate was 11.7% and more than two dozen states and territories had error rates higher than 10%.

That means in practice the costs to states would be much higher. The three most populous states — California, Texas and Florida — alone would have combined to owe more than $5.7 billion under their 2023 error rates and 2024 benefit amounts.

Republican members said the requirement would incentivize states to better manage their programs.

“Unlike every other state-administered entitlement program, SNAP benefit is 100% funded by the federal government, resulting in minimal incentives for states to control costs, enhance efficiencies and improve outcomes for recipients,” Thompson said.

Impact on state budgets

Democrats said states could ill afford to take on additional costs, meaning the bill would result in cuts to the program or other critical services.

“The massive unfunded mandate this bill forces on states just passes the buck onto state legislatures, forcing them to slash local programs and services, cut benefits, kick vulnerable people off SNAP or raise taxes,” Craig said. “We already know states can’t afford it.”

The change would force difficult decisions for states, several Democrats said.

In Ohio, the state would be on the hook for an additional $534 million annually, Democrat Shontel Brown said.

“That’s not to expand benefits or improve outcomes, that’s just to maintain the status quo.” she said. “To cover the costs, Ohio, along with every other state, is going to have to make brutal tradeoffs. It’s going to mean cutting K-12 education funding, scaling back opioid and mental health treatment programs, reducing Medicaid coverage or putting off critical infrastructure repairs.”

Republicans countered that the provision would bring much needed accountability to state administrators, which would make the program fairer overall.

Alaska had an error rate of nearly 60% in fiscal 2023. Without mentioning that state, Derrick Van Orden, a Republican whose home state of Wisconsin was among the few states with error rates under 6%, said the costs associated with such numerous errors shouldn’t be covered by states with lower rates.

“Overpayments, waste, fraud and abuse have plagued programs like SNAP,” he said. “There is a state that has a 59.59% overpayment rate and my Wisconsinites are not going to pick up that slack.”

States’ error rates include fraud, but it makes up a small share of a category that also includes inadvertent underpayments and overpayments, Michigan Democrat Kristen McDonald Rivet said.

SNAP has a fraud rate of less than 1% and work requirements already exist, McDonald Rivet said. Republicans’ efforts to target fraud and add work requirements wouldn’t reach the cost savings they sought, she said.

“Are there error rates in the states? Sure,” she said. “Should we address it? Absolutely. But the idea that we are going to find $300 billion of cuts — $300 billion of cuts — on that small percentage of people who are not working that are already required to or error rates in the states is just a flat-out lie. What we are really doing is cutting food for people.”

Administrative costs

The bill would also increase states’ share of the cost of administering the food assistance program.

Under current law, states and the federal government evenly split the cost of administering the program. The bill would have states shoulder 75% of administrative costs.

Democrats, including the ranking member of the panel’s Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee, complained that would compound the problems created by the new cost structure for SNAP benefits.

“States will be forced to budget more for SNAP benefits with less for administrators,” Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut said. “With fewer administrative staff, it is inevitable that errors will increase.”

Work requirements

Another section of the bill would expand the number of participants subject to work requirements to receive SNAP benefits.

The proposal would raise from 54 to 64 the age at which a person no longer has to meet work requirements. It would also lower from 18 to 7 the age at which caring for a child exempts a person from work requirements.

Democrats raised and introduced several amendments meant to address the provision, but were outvoted each time.

Kansas Republican Tracey Mann said the changes were not only about improving SNAP efficiency, but would make the program’s rules fairer for those it was meant to serve.

“It is wrong to jeopardize the benefits of the single mom taking care of kids too young to be in school or the disabled or elderly in order to subsidize someone who is perfectly capable of making an honest income but isn’t willing to join the workforce,” Mann said.

“These changes will ensure that individuals are served by the program as it was intended — not as a couch that you can sit on as long as you want, but as a true safety net that gets you back on the ladder of opportunity and back into a job.”