The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Few policy changes

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

New authorizations needed 

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“Going to make hunger worse”

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans adopted their budget resolution Wednesday night, clearing the way for the party to pass a bill in the coming weeks that will provide tens of billions in additional funding for immigration enforcement. 

The 215-211 party-line vote unlocks the complicated budget reconciliation process that will allow the GOP to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term in office. California independent Rep. Kevin Kiley, formerly a Republican, voted “present.”

The budget resolution was approved by the Senate earlier this month and does not need Trump’s signature.

When combined with a separate Senate-passed bill, which Speaker Mike Johnson has so far refused to put on the House floor for a vote, the two measures are expected to eventually end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began in mid-February. 

House Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said during floor debate that lawmakers should place constraints on immigration agents after they shot and killed two U.S. citizens earlier this year in Minneapolis. 

“I think the vast majority of the American people agree with me that we need to have a secure border, but that we cannot have any agency of our government carrying out killings on our streets,” he said. 

Republicans removed ICE and Border Patrol funding from the annual DHS appropriations bill after negotiators were unable to broker agreement with Democrats to place new guardrails on immigration activities.

Placing funding for those two agencies in a reconciliation bill allows Republicans to move the measure through the Senate without securing 60 votes to end debate, which would require bipartisanship. 

Immigration enforcement debated

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said the shutdown isn’t “just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports.” 

“This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis. And this is the moment we take the keys from the kids and we say no more of this nonsense,” he added.  

DHS includes the Coast Guard, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration. 

Arrington used his debate time to criticize Democrats for demanding constraints on immigration agents, arguing federal officers shouldn’t have to secure a judicial warrant to enter someone’s home to detain a person in the country without proper documentation.

“There is not a Democrat or Republican former commander-in-chief that would ever find that acceptable,” he said. 

Democrats also called for federal immigration agents to: 

• Wear body cameras.
• Only wear masks to conceal their identities in “extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
• Not undertake roving patrols.
• Not detain people in certain locations, like houses of worship, schools, or polling places.
• Not engage in racial profiling.
• Not detain or deport American citizens. 

Up to $140 billion

The GOP used the reconciliation process last year to enact its “big, beautiful” law, which included an additional $170 billion for immigration and deportation enforcement. 

The reconciliation bill Republicans hope to approve in the next month can cost up to $140 billion, according to the instructions in the budget resolution. But GOP lawmakers expect the price tag to come in around $70 billion.

The additional funding is significantly higher than the $10 billion allocation for ICE and the $18.3 billion for Customs and Border Protection that Congress was on track to approve earlier this year. About $550 million of the CBP total was for the Border Patrol. 

White House officials have repeatedly urged lawmakers to quickly approve the reconciliation bill that has yet to be released and for House Republicans to clear the Senate-passed DHS appropriations bill for Trump’s signature. 

The Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to lawmakers this week notifying them the administration is running out of money to pay DHS employees during the shutdown. 

“If this funding is exhausted, the Administration will be unable to pay all DHS personnel beginning in May, which will once again unleash havoc on air travel, leave critical law enforcement officers—including our brave Secret Service agents—and the Coast Guard without paychecks, and jeopardize national security,” it says. 

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office on Monday invoked an upcoming landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on the role of race in drawing congressional districts to justify the Republican’s proposed gerrymander.

“The use of race in redistricting should never happen,” the governor’s general counsel, David Axelman, wrote in a memo unveiling a map that aims to hand Republicans four additional U.S. House seats in Florida.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court delivered an opinion sharply weakening a major portion of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Even before the decision, Republicans and Democrats across the country were scrambling to get ahead of the court’s anticipated ruling. 

The rush comes even as state legislative sessions wind down and the window to redraw maps rapidly closes ahead of the midterm elections in November — likely pushing most redistricting battles into the 2028 election cycle.

The opinion in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, could reverberate for decades. The court’s conservative majority significantly curtailed the consideration of race when drawing legislative maps. 

Until now, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has limited states from using maps that dilute the voting power of minority citizens.

“If the Supreme Court does decide to gut or significantly weaken Section 2 of the VRA, we’re very concerned that it would give, basically, the green light to states to racially gerrymander,” Michael McNulty, policy director at Issue One, a group focused on protecting American democracy, said in an interview ahead of the decision.

Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 U.S. House seats nationally directly because of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to a projection by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, and the Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters. At the state level, the groups have projected that Republicans could gain up to 200 state legislative seats across the South. 

“It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, wrote in a blog post following the opinion’s release on Wednesday.

Louisiana case

A group of white voters challenged Louisiana’s congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander after the state in 2024 created a second district where a majority of voters are Black. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative justices agreed, ruling 6-3 that the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the state didn’t need to create a second majority-minority district.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the Supreme Court has “had its sights set” on the Voting Rights Act for more than a decade.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote.

Following the opinion, Republican-led legislatures across the South are expected to move to break apart Democratic districts where a majority of residents are Black or from other minority groups. 

U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, called on the state legislature to reconvene and redraw the state’s congressional districts to create another Republican-held seat in Memphis. Blackburn, who is running for governor, said an additional seat is essential to cement President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves last week announced a special session to redraw the state’s Supreme Court districts, to begin 21 days after the court releases its decision.

“It is a decision that could (and in my view should) forever change the way we draw electoral maps,” Reeves said in a statement announcing the session.

Although the Supreme Court case centered on Louisiana, state officials are likely out of time to adopt a new map for this year’s election. The primary election is set for May 16.

Still, Louisiana will be free to pursue redistricting next year.

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, Sr., a Democrat who represents one of the state’s two majority-minority districts, said the court’s decision was a “devastating blow” to the promise of equal representation.

“This ruling is about far more than lines on a map — it’s about whether Black Louisianians will have a meaningful opportunity to make their voices heard,” Carter said in a statement.

The redistricting wars of 2026

As of 2024, roughly a third of U.S. House seats represented majority-minority districts — 122 held by Democrats and 26 held by Republicans, according to estimates by Ballotpedia. Texas and California account for nearly half of all the districts.

Seven states have already taken the extraordinary step of redrawing their maps this year after President Donald Trump urged Republicans to draw lines that maximize partisan advantage ahead of the midterms. Maps are typically redrawn every 10 years after the census.

Texas and California struck first, followed by Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah. Virginia voters last week approved a redraw, and Florida lawmakers approved a new map Wednesday. 

All told, Republicans may emerge from the redistricting war with a small net advantage of a handful of seats if the Florida plan is enacted and the other maps are upheld.

The calendar will prove a major obstacle to additional gerrymanders this year. Primary elections have already been held in some southern states and ballots have been distributed in others. 

Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas have already held primaries, while ballots have been distributed in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. 

But after November the clock resets, giving states more than a year to pursue further changes to their maps before the 2028 election.

“We are much more concerned about the impact on 2028 and beyond that that would have, letting these politicians basically just pick their voters instead of the voters picking them,” McNulty said.

John R. Lewis bill

As Democrats look ahead to Callais’ likely fallout in the coming years, they have begun urgently calling for action in Congress and at the state level. They also say the decision emphasizes the stakes of this year’s elections.

“Today is a devastating day for democracy and a wake-up call for all those who seek to protect it,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

Democrats in Congress have repeatedly offered the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Named after the civil rights activist and Georgia congressman who died in 2020, the legislation aims to strengthen Section 2 and other elements of the current Voting Rights Act, though it’s unclear whether the bill would be constitutional under the Callais decision.

The U.S. House, under Democratic control, passed the legislation in 2021 but it was filibustered in the Senate. Some lawmakers are speaking about the measure again, and Democrats may take control of Congress in November’s elections—though they would still face President Donald Trump in the White House. 

“We can and must revive the Voting Rights Act,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat and the ranking member of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, said at a shadow hearing on voting rights on Monday.

For their part, Republicans hailed the Supreme Court decision as long overdue.

U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement said “activists” for too long had manipulated the redistricting process to achieve political outcomes, dividing Americans in the process.

“The Supreme Court made clear that our elections should be decided by voters, not engineered through unconstitutional mandates,” Hudson said.

Voting Rights Act over the years

Over more than a decade, the Supreme Court has narrowed the potency of the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law banning racial discrimination in voting that came as Congress battled Jim Crow laws in southern states. 

The measure was intended to help enforce the U.S. Constitution’s 14th and 15th amendments, which guarantee equal protection under the law and prohibit denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

In 2013, the court effectively halted preclearance — the requirement that some states and local governments with a history of discrimination obtain federal permission before changing their voting practices. At the time of the decision, most southern states and a handful of others were subject to preclearance.

The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that federal courts cannot review allegations of partisan gerrymandering. The decision cleared the way for state lawmakers to gerrymander their maps for political advantage without fear they would be second-guessed by federal judges. 

The opinion helped empower a wave of gerrymanders after the 2020 census and set the stage for this year’s mid-decade redistricting.

Turning to the legislatures

Facing a bleak federal landscape, some voting rights advocates are increasingly turning to state legislatures. The Supreme Court decision undercutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act will likely intensify efforts to advance state-level legislation.

“Because political participation is inherently local, it is imperative to press for protections at the ground level,” Todd Cox, associate director counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, a racial justice legal organization, said at the shadow hearing.

Some Democratic state lawmakers already introduced measures in anticipation of an unfavorable Supreme Court decision.

The Illinois House last week approved a state constitutional amendment that would require districts to be drawn “to ensure that no citizen is denied an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of his or her choice on account of race.”

The Illinois amendment would also require, where practical, the creation of racial coalition or influence districts — terms that refer to districts where racial minorities together constitute a majority of residents. The measure, which must also pass the state Senate before going to voters, was a pre-response to the Callais opinion.

“This will ensure that Illinois will always recognize the fundamental principle that a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people must include all the people,” Illinois Democratic House Speaker Emanuel Welch told reporters after the amendment advanced.

Illinois Republicans have cast the amendment as a Democratic power grab. The state has some of the most gerrymandered maps in the nation, Illinois House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, a Republican, said in a statement. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project has given Illinois’ maps an overall “F” grade.

“Let’s be clear: this has nothing to do with strengthening democracy,” McCombie said. “It’s about locking in one-party control at any cost.”

WASHINGTON — The approval gap on President Donald Trump’s war in Iran narrowed slightly Thursday in the U.S. House, when a War Powers Resolution gained a handful of votes, though still falling just short of passage.

The effort to force Trump to seek congressional authorization before further action in Iran failed 213-214, with one Republican voting present — shrinking the daylight compared to a 212-219 result in early March.

Democrats Greg Landsman of Ohio, Juan Vargas of California and Henry Cuellar of Texas flipped to vote in favor of the resolution brought to the floor by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. 

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, remained the only Democrat in opposition.

Golden said in a statement following the vote that he opposed the War Powers Resolution because it “would weaken our hand.”

“The purported aim of this and other war powers resolutions is to stop the hostilities. Thankfully, the United States and Iran are currently in a ceasefire, and we are negotiating over critical questions of national security and international order. I believe we must maintain a strong negotiation position over Iran’s nuclear program, freedom of movement in the international waters at the Strait of Hormuz, and how to achieve a durable peace between our two nations,” Golden said.  

As he did in early March, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., supported curtailing Trump’s military operations in the Middle East without further approval from Congress.

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, switched his support from last month’s “yes” vote to “present” Thursday.

The vote occurred one day after the Senate rejected a similar proposal, for the fourth time. The Senate’s vote margin has remained unchanged, with the exception of a couple absences.

Ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon

The vote also happened minutes after Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, a separate deadly war front that flared just days after the United States and Israel launched their Feb. 28 joint strikes on Iran.

The U.S. and Iran, meanwhile, are more than halfway through a two-week ceasefire that began on tenuous ground on April 7.

Talks with the Iranians, led by Vice President JD Vance, collapsed Saturday in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Trump on Thursday repeated his earlier claims that the war is winding down.

“We’re very close to making a deal with Iran. You’ll be the first to know,” Trump told reporters at the White House before departing for a planned event in Nevada to promote his no tax on tips policy. 

“I think we have a chance. And if that happens, oil goes way down, prices go way down, inflation goes way down, and you’re going to have much more importantly than even that, you won’t have nuclear holocaust happening now,” Trump said.

The war is “very close to being over,” Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo Wednesday. Trump told the New York Post Tuesday that Iran-U.S. peace talks could pick up again “over the next two days.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Thursday the U.S. military remains “locked and loaded” on Iran’s “critical dual use infrastructure,” including power plants and energy infrastructure, if the regime does not meet U.S. demands.

Strait of Hormuz

The U.S. is three days into a blockade on vessels from any nation sailing in and out of Iranian ports and coastline. 

Thirteen vessels turned around to comply with orders from the U.S. Navy in the waters just east of the narrowest point in the Strait of Hormuz, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said during a joint press briefing Thursday morning from the Pentagon.

U.S. Central Command updated that figure to 14 in a Thursday morning X post.

Caine said more than 10,000 sailors, marines and airmen are executing the operation on more than a dozen ships and dozens of aircraft.

Caine said in addition to the blockade, U.S. forces in all international waters are ordered to “actively pursue any Iranian flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran.”

The flashpoint in the Strait of Hormuz has rocked global energy markets, causing massive fuel shortages and soaring gas prices. Americans are paying on average $4.09 for a gallon of regular gas, and $5.61 for a gallon of diesel, according to AAA.

The war has claimed the lives of 13 American troops, and injured 398 as of Thursday, according to the Pentagon. Thousands of civilians have been killed and injured across the Middle East since the start of the conflict.