Senate passes effort to claw back $9B from budget — including cuts to public broadcasting and USAID
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate narrowly approved a White House request to claw back $9 billion from the federal budget, including funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting.
The final vote early Thursday morning was 51-48 with Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voting with Democrats against the rescissions bill.
President Donald Trump requested the cuts, which include significant cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The passage marks a win for Trump, who called the cuts a priority even though some Republicans voiced opposition.
A number of Republicans that represent states with rural communities — such as Murkowski of Alaska and Mike Rounds of South Dakota — have expressed concerns about cuts to public broadcasting that could affect the ability of certain communities to access emergency alerts.
The bill now returns to the House with a deadline for final passage on Friday. The House must pass the bill on or before Friday in order to meet the deadline on this package.
The final vote happened after an hourslong and slow-moving vote-a-rama — or marathon voting session — during which Democrats offered numerous amendments to the bill. The bulk of Democratic amendments focused on trying to fight back against cuts to both public broadcast and global health that are in the bill.
The Senate’s process to advance the package began on Tuesday night when Republicans narrowly advanced the rescissions package with the assist of the tie-breaking vote of Vice President J.D. Vance.
Three Republicans crossed the aisle on Tuesday night to cast votes against the bill after raising concerns about the lack of detail in the White House’s rescission plan: Sens. Collins, Murkowski and Mitch McConnell.
(WASHINGTON) — Facing uproar from his MAGA base over the Jeffrey Epstein files, President Donald Trump has called for Attorney General Pam Bondi “to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval” related to the case.
Bondi responded on social media Thursday evening, saying, “We are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts.”
It’s not immediately clear from the social media postings how extensive the administration’s request to unseal the transcripts would be.
The release of any grand jury materials, which are secret, would be subject to a legal process and the approval of a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, where Epstein was charged before he died by suicide in 2019.
A judge would likely consider the impact of the release on victims, which courts have gone to great lengths to protect, as well as any parties who may be implicated in the case and want the information to remain secret.
Crucially, the 2019 case pertains to allegations against Epstein and his alleged sex crimes, not the broader questions posed by many of Trump’s supporters about who else, if anyone, might have been involved.
The DOJ and FBI have numerous other unclassified records in the case that they said they will not disclose, despite vowing in February to “release the remaining documents upon review and redaction to protect the identities of Epstein’s victims.”
An “evidence list” released in February offers a roadmap to some of these unreleased records, including visitor records to Epstein’s private island as well as wiretap records for his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Earlier this month, the DOJ and FBI released a memo stating no further records in the case would be released, saying “much of the material is subject to court-ordered sealing” and that the agencies “will not permit the release of child pornography” or sensitive details pertaining to the victims.
The agencies found no evidence that Epstein kept a “client list” of associates or that he blackmailed any prominent individuals and concluded no investigation into uncharged third party was warranted.
The brief memo put out by the DOJ and FBI stoked furor among Trump’s diehard supporters after years of prominent right-wing figures pushing accusations about Epstein and the “deep state” that’s protecting elites.
Trump’s since sought various ways to put out the political firestorm, coming to Bondi’s defense while also saying she should release what she deems “credible.”
Shifting explanation from Trump
In Trump’s call for Bondi to produce the grand jury testimony, he said it was a “SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats,” and that it “should end, right now!”
This is a shift from his previous statement of calling the Epstein files a “hoax” and those Republican supporters who are questioning his administration’s handling of it as “stupid” and “foolish.”
Trump, in a phone interview with “Just the News” on Real America’s Voice on Wednesday night, alleged without providing evidence that Democrats and former officials doctored files relating to the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender.
The comments came when Trump was asked if he wanted one prosecutor to look into the broad subject of political prosecution.
“Well, I think it’s in the case of Epstein, they’ve already looked at it, and they are looking at it, and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible,” Trump said.
“But you know, that was run by the Biden administration for four years. I can imagine what they put into files, just like they did with the others,” Trump continued. “I mean, the Steele dossier was a total fake, right? It took two years to figure that out for the people, and all of the things that you mentioned were fake.”
“So I would imagine if they were run by Chris Wray and they were run by Comey, and because it was actually even before that administration, they’ve been running these files, and so much of the things that we found were fake with me,” Trump said.
Despite Trump’s claims that Democrats “put” things in the files, many documents relating to Epstein, including those that mention Trump and several prominent Democrats, have been public for years.
No special prosecutor
And the White House on Thursday shut down the idea of appointing a special prosecutor in the Epstein case.
“The idea was floated from someone in the media to the president. The president would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case. That’s how he feels,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at the briefing.
Asked to clarify what part of the Epstein saga is a “hoax” as Trump claimed, Leavitt only continued to criticize Democrats.
“The president is referring to the fact that Democrats have now seized on this as if they ever wanted transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, which is an asinine suggestion for any Democrat to make,” she said. “The Democrats had control of this building, the White House, for four years, and they didn’t do a dang thing when it came to transparency in regards to Jeffrey Epstein and his heinous crimes.”
Epstein was arrested in 2019 and died in prison by suicide while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges while Trump was president.
“Some of the naive Republicans fall right into line, like they always do,” the president said on “Just the News.”
Calls for transparency
Calls for transparency on Epstein came from several Republicans on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. And Trump’s own former vice president, Mike Pence, called for the administration to “release all of the files” regarding the Epstein investigation.
Leavitt on Thursday defended the administration’s handling of the Epstein files and attempted to distance Trump from further decision-making on the case.
Leavitt said it would be up to the Justice Department and Bondi to release any other “credible” evidence.
“In terms of redactions or grand jury seals, those are questions for the Department of Justice. Those are also questions for the judges who have that information under a seal. And that would have to be requested and judge would have to approve it. That’s out of the president’s control,” she said when asked why they wouldn’t release the files, with sensitive information redacted, in order to provide more transparency.
(WASHINGTON) — Following his closed-door meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the NATO Summit on Wednesday, President Donald Trump didn’t rule out sending Ukraine monetary and defense aid as he voiced frustrations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
During his press conference at the conclusion of his trip to The Hague, Netherlands, Trump signaled a willingness to provide Ukraine with additional aid and sell or send Patriot air-defense missiles to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia.
“They do want to have the anti-missile, missiles,” Trump said of Ukraine. “As they call them the Patriots, and we’re going to see if we can make some available.”
Trump’s openness comes as Zelenskyy told ABC News earlier this month the United States diverted anti-drone weapons, previously promised to Ukraine under a Biden administration agreement, to the Middle East.
“You know, they’re very hard to get. We need them to. We were supplying them to Israel, and they’re very effective, 100% effective. Hard to believe how effective,” Trump said.
“As far as money going, we’ll see what happens. There’s a lot of spirit,” Trump added.
Trump also appeared to shift his tone when describing his conversation with Zelenskyy, a relationship marked by many pivots.
“He was very nice, actually. You know, we had little rough times sometimes. He was uh – couldn’t have been nicer. I think he’d like to see an end to this. I do,” he said of Zelenskyy.
Zelenskyy offered similar praise of Trump, calling their meeting “long and substantive” while affirming he told him Ukraine is ready to buy more U.S. weapons.
“With the President, we discussed the protection of our people — first and foremost, the purchase of American air defense systems to cover our cities, our people, churches, and infrastructure,” Zelenskyy said in a statement on Wednesday.
“Ukraine is ready to buy this equipment and support American arms manufacturers. Europe can help as well,” Zelenskyy said. “We also talked about possible joint drone production. We can strengthen each other.”
During his press conference, Trump added Zelenskyy was fighting a “brave” and “tough” battle while putting pressure on Putin to show more willingness to end the conflict.
“Look. Vladimir Putin really has to end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven’t seen for a long time.”
Then, when pressed on why he wasn’t able to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine quickly as he adamantly claimed while on the campaign trail, Trump again pointed the blame towards Putin.
“It’s more difficult than people wouldn’t have any idea,” Trump said.
“Vladimir Putin has been more difficult. Frankly, I had some problems with Zelenskyy. You may have read about him, and it’s been more difficult than other wars.”
Trump’s public praise of Zelenskyy marks a shift in tone for the President, who has had public battles with the leader of Ukraine.
Most notably in February, a public Oval Office spat between the two officials led to a scrapped bilateral mineral deal, which wasn’t finalized for two months until the pair sat down together on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral.
Then, in recent weeks, as Trump focused on negotiating an agreement between Iran and Israel, he left last week’s G7 Summit in Canada early, skipping out on a bilateral with Ukraine.
However, after their meeting on Wednesday, Trump displayed more compassion for the situation in Ukraine in a moment highlighted by his exchange with a Ukrainian reporter who said her husband was a Ukrainian soldier while she and her children fled to Warsaw for safety.
“Wow, that’s rough stuff, right? That’s tough,” Trump said, asking the reporter many personal questions before answering her policy question.
“That’s very good question. And I wish you a lot of luck. I mean, I can see it’s very upsetting to you. So say hello to your husband. Okay?” Trump said.
Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Student Borrower Protection Center
(WASHINGTON) — More than 175 Democratic members of Congress are filing an amicus brief on Thursday opposing the Trump administration’s overhaul of the U.S. Department of Education.
“The law couldn’t be clearer: the president does not have the authority to unilaterally abolish the Department of Education,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote in a statement first obtained by ABC News, adding, “Donald Trump is not a king, and he cannot single-handedly cut off access to education for students across this country.”
Warren and Reps. Jamie Raskin, Bobby Scott and Rosa DeLauro — the ranking members of the House’s Education and Judiciary committees — are leading the 15-page legal document. They’re joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, more than 20 Senate Democrats, and more than 150 other members of the House Democratic caucus.
The lawmakers’ brief attempting to block the administration from abolishing the Department of Education is in support of the NAACP’s suit against the government this past spring. In March, that case argued that downsizing the department through a workforce reduction that slashed nearly half the agency’s staff — among other measures like terminating statutory grant programs — violates the separation of powers and lacks constitutional authority.
The NAACP, the National Education Association (NEA), and a coalition of groups filed a preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland this week, arguing the judge’s consideration of this case is needed after the administration’s recent decision to pause more than $6 billion in congressionally appropriated education programs ahead of the school year.
“The motion seeks a remedy for the serious harm that the Trump Administration has inflicted on students, educators, schools, and colleges and universities, and asks the Court to direct the Department to fulfill its statutory obligations to students nationwide,” according to a statement released by the NEA, which represents more than 3 million educators.
Raskin condemned the administration’s efforts to curb public education, contending President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon can’t abolish the agency without congressional approval.
“Congress created the Department of Education to ensure that every student in America could obtain a high-quality, free public school education,” Raskin wrote in a statement. “This is the right of every citizen and an essential democratic safeguard against political tyranny,” he said.
“No president has the authority to dismantle a federal agency created by law. We’re going to court to defend not only congressional power but the department’s national educational mission, itself a pillar of American democracy,” Raskin added.
The power to reorganize the executive branch belongs to Congress and is underscored by the fact that when presidents have reorganized the executive branch, they have done so “through legislation and subject to appropriate restraints,” according to the brief by the lawmakers.
Their brief argues that only Congress has the authority to create, restructure, and abolish federal agencies, it has to be done through legislation, and the Department of Education can’t be unilaterally abolished because it’s statutorily mandated.
Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colorado, told ABC News closing the department would strip “vital support” from tens of millions of students and teachers.
“I’m proud to stand with my colleagues in the House and Senate to uphold Congress’ responsibility to ensure every student has access to a quality education and to defend the essential work of the Department of Education,” Neguse said.
Efforts to dismantle the department have been blocked by lower courts this spring. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on a Massachusetts case that could decide whether the firing of nearly 2,000 employees at the agency stands. McMahon has stressed the critical functions of the department remain and that services like students with disabilities, for example, could ultimately be moved to other agencies.
The brief is part of Warren’s larger Save Our Schools campaign that she started after Trump signed an executive order to diminish the Department of Education.
“The federal government has invested in our public schools,” Warren told ABC News in April. “Taking that away from our kids so that a handful of billionaires can be even richer is just plain ugly, and I will fight it with everything I’ve got.”
The senator has previously requested the agency’s Office of Inspector General review the Department of Government Efficiency’s alleged “infiltration” of the agency’s internal federal student loan database. Prior to the Save Our Schools campaign, she investigated the firing of federal student aid employees and how a reduction in staff at the agency could have “dire consequences” for borrowers.
The brief also comes after Raskin and several other House Democrats met with McMahon about the future of the agency. That meeting appeared to leave many with unanswered questions, like Rep. Frederica Wilson, a senior member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, who also signed on to the amicus brief.
“For the Department of Education to be dismantled, it is going to bring a shock to this nation,” said Wilson, a former principal and lifelong educator. “Schools are the bedrock of this nation. When schools are working, our country is, too.”
