GOP-led House set to vote on rescinding Trump’s Canada tariffs
President Donald Trump speaks with reporters while aboard Air Force One, February 6, 2026 en route to Palm Beach, Florida. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After Tuesday night’s embarrassing defeat for Speaker Mike Johnson at the hands of rebellious Republicans, the House is set to vote Wednesday evening on a Democratic-led resolution to rescind President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed on Canada — which could result in a major rebuke of the president’s trade policies.
The legislation, led by the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, would force House lawmakers to go on the record for the first time on Trump’s tariffs and trade policy.
The measure seeks to end the emergency declaration Trump used to justify his Canada tariffs.
Even if the tariff vote clears the GOP-led House, Trump is likely to veto the measure. It’s unclear how the largely symbolic vote will fall given Speaker Johnson’s razor-thin majority.
Johnson argued on Fox Business Wednesday morning that Congress should not be getting in the way of Trump’s tariffs.
“I think it’s a big mistake. I don’t think we need to go down the road of trying to limit the president’s power while he is in the midst of negotiating America first trade agreements,” Johnson said, adding that tariffs have “done great for the economy.”
He pointed to the tariff case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court — arguing that Congress should allow that process to play out.
House Republican leaders have fought for a year to block such a tariff vote from hitting the House floor, but the failed rule vote Tuesday night opened the door to full House votes on overturning the president’s tariffs.
Three Republicans — Reps. Kevin Kiley, Don Bacon and Thomas Massie — bucked their own party to defeat the procedural effort that failed by a vote of 214-217.
Bacon posted on X Wednesday, “Congress has Article One Constitutional responsibilities on tariffs. We cannot & should not outsource our responsibilities. As an old fashioned Conservative I know tariffs are a tax on American consumers. I know some disagree. But this debate and vote should occur in the House.”
Even if the House passes the resolution the matter would need to go back to the Senate.
Last October, the Senate voted on similar resolutions to cancel some of Trump’s tariffs.
At the time, some Senate Republicans joined Democrats to rebuke the president’s trade policy.
Cranes overlook the White House, as construction of the new ballroom extension continues, following demolition of the East Wing, on April 11, 2026. (Al Drago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — ABC News has obtained a one-page breakdown of how the White House says it intends to spend the $1 billion that some Republicans want to approve for President Donald Trump’s East Wing renovation to the White House, which includes the construction of Trump’s massive ballroom.
The document — which was provided without elaboration — was presented by U.S. Secret Service Director Sean Curran to Senate Republicans during a luncheon on Tuesday.
The price breakdown for each target area of the project area is:
$220 million for White House hardening $180 million for White House visitor security screening facility $175 million for Secret Service training $175 million for enhancements for Secret Service protectees $150 million for evolving threats and technology $100 million for events of national significance
Axios was first to report the news.
While the White House has insisted the funding is necessary in the wake of the assassination attempt against Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, Senate Republicans still appeared skeptical of the $1 billion request following Curran’s briefing.
“He gave us a list that breaks down the spending in a little more detail, but … there are still a lot of questions,” said Republican Sen. John Kennedy. “It’s not the only concern, but one of the biggest concerns on our side is adding to the deficit.”
While Senate Majority Leader John Thune remains adamant that the request could be tucked into the ongoing reconciliation process, it faces an uphill battle earning 50 Republican votes.
It’s also not clear whether the provision will make it through the Senate’s rigorous review process. Democrats are expected to argue before the Senate’s parliamentarian that the spending is extraneous and therefore should not be allowed to be included in a reconciliation bill. Since news of Republicans’ intention to include funding for the ballroom became public last week, Democrats have repeatedly hammered the proposal. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the administration for focusing on the ballroom instead of lowering consumer costs during a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday morning.
“At a time when 77% — that’s 77% — of Americans say that Donald Trump’s policies have increased their cost of living, Trump and the Senate GOP try to force through a bill that would spend a billion taxpayer dollars on a gilded ballroom and not one penny on bringing down costs,” Schumer said, referencing a CNN poll out earlier this week that found 77% say that Trump’s policies have increased the cost of living in their own community.
“Trump may be trying to build a ballroom but clearly he is living in the theater of the absurd,” Schumer added.
The $1 billion request is in addition to the annual USSS budget, $3.2 billion in FY 2025.
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 21, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After drama and delay, House Republicans narrowly approved a blueprint for legislation to fund immigration enforcement agencies, the first step in the GOP’s plan to reopen the Department of Homeland Security.
The party-line vote, which was held open for more than five hours, was called at 10:39 p.m. on Wednesday after Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leaders huddled with holdouts.
Reps. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Andy Harris of Maryland, Michael Cloud of Texas and Victoria Spartz of Indiana flipped their votes to yes after hours of discussion. Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an Independent who conferences with Republicans, voted present.
The final vote was 215-211-1.
The budget resolution kicks off the drafting process of a bill that Republicans said would provide billions of dollars to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term.
Trump has set a June 1 deadline for Republicans to fund the immigration enforcement agencies.
Republicans are using reconciliation, a lengthy and complex process, to overcome Democratic opposition.
Democrats have said they won’t support funding for ICE and CBP without reforms to their operating procedures, after two American citizens in Minneapolis were fatally shot by federal agents earlier this year.
DHS has been shut down since mid-February, making it the longest shutdown in U.S. history.
The shooting at the White House Correspondents Association dinner at the Washington Hilton on Saturday rekindled the DHS funding fight. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the funding lapse a “national emergency.”
But it’s currently unclear when House Republican leaders plan to put a Senate-passed bill to fund the rest of DHS on the floor for a vote.
In this Aug. 8, 2020, file photo, an offshore petroleum drilling rig is shown in the Gulf of Mexico. (UIG via Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal committee, comprised of senior Trump administration officials, voted unanimously to grant an exemption under the Endangered Species Act for oil and gas operations in the Gulf, citing national security concerns.
Environmental groups criticized the decision, warning that it could significantly jeopardize the conservation of dozens of threatened and endangered species in the region, including whales, sea turtles, whooping cranes and manatees.
The Endangered Species Committee convened Tuesday after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a national security finding that triggered the exemption process.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Endangered Species Committee can grant rare exemptions when a federal action is of national or regional significance and the benefits of proceeding clearly outweigh the benefits of alternatives that would conserve the species. Economic, security and other public-interest factors can be considered alongside conservation mandates, though exemptions are rarely used.
“At the request of the Department of War, the Endangered Species Committee convened today to consider a national security exemption under the Endangered Species Act with respect to oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in a statement to ABC News.
“The Committee voted in favor of the national security exemption, acknowledging the critical risks involved in restricting oil and gas activities in the Gulf of America, and also recognizing that the action encompassed protective measures for endangered species.”
Officials emphasized that sustained oil and gas production in the region is essential to U.S. national security and economic stability, and cautioned that critical energy operations should not be jeopardized by the threat of disruptive litigation.
The committee, created in 1978, is very rarely convened due to the strict, narrow standards for its implementation. It has not met in more than 30 years, and this is the first time a national security justification has been used to convene the committee.
The Endangered Species Committee, composed of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was fully present and voted unanimously in favor of granting the exemption.
“This meeting made clear that energy streams in the Gulf of America must not be disrupted or held hostage by ongoing litigation,” said Secretary Burgum. “Energy production in the Gulf of America is indispensable to our nation’s strength, safeguarding our energy independence and preventing reliance on foreign adversaries. Robust development in the Gulf keeps our economy resilient, stabilizes costs for American families and secures the U.S. as a global leader for decades to come.”
On March 13, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notified Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, chair of the Endangered Species Committee, that a national security exemption under Section 7(j) of the Endangered Species Act, was necessary, prompting Secretary Burgum to publish a notice of the meeting in the Federal Register.
The meeting began with the defense secretary addressing the committee, stressing the importance of a steady, affordable domestic energy supply, which is currently under threat. He thanked the committee members for convening to discuss what he called “a matter of urgent national security.”
“This is not just about gas prices. It’s about our ability to power our military and protect our nation. That vital energy supply right now is under threat,” Hegseth said. “In January, well before Operation Epic Fury, the Department of the Interior notified the Department of War about ongoing Endangered Species Act litigation that threatened to halt oil and gas production in the Gulf of America.”
According to Hegseth, the litigation seeks to stop Gulf oil and gas activities rather than allow them to proceed alongside responsible endangered species protections.
“These legal battles waste critical government resources and make it impossible for energy companies to plan and invest in new projects. When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department,” Hegseth added. “The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s busiest oil route and recent hostile action by the Iranian terror regime highlights yet again why robust domestic oil production is a national security imperative.”
However, environmental groups argue this is not what the authors of this landmark law intended.
The Center for Biological Diversity sued Secretary Burgum on March 18, attempting to block the committee meeting, saying the government missed legal requirements, including filing deadlines, providing ample public notice, and having an administrative law judge preside. Following the committee’s decision, the group announced it will amend its existing lawsuit to challenge the defense secretary’s national security determination and the exemption.
“Americans overwhelmingly oppose sacrificing endangered whales and other marine life so the fossil fuel industry can get richer. This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Trump and his lackeys kowtowing to Big Oil,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
Environmental groups are particularly concerned about the Rice’s whale, which, according to NOAA, is one of the rarest and most endangered whales in the world and is found only in the Gulf.
NOAA Fisheries, which manages protections for marine species under the Endangered Species Act, listed the Gulf of Mexico Bryde’s whale as endangered in 2019 and, in 2021, updated its name to Rice’s whale to reflect the newly accepted scientific taxonomy and nomenclature of the species.
According to the Marine Mammal Commission, the most recent population estimates show there are only 51 Rice’s whales remaining.
The Rice’s whale’s small population, limited range and low genetic diversity make it highly vulnerable to threats such as vessel strikes and oil spills. NOAA says the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill exposed about 48 percent of its habitat in the eastern Gulf, likely causing a population decline of up to 22 percent and leaving lasting impacts on reproduction and growth.
The committee’s decision will not have any immediate effect, and lawsuits challenging the action could delay its implementation further. It could be several years before any future additional oil production tied to the decision is realized.
“The action could make it easier for applications to be granted for further oil and gas exploration and development in the Gulf; but it takes several years between the filing of an application and the production of the first barrel of oil,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. ”No court has ordered oil and gas production to be shut down in the Gulf, and such an order seems very unlikely.”
