Senate advances legislation to withhold pay from senators during government shutdowns
The U.S. Capitol Building dome, on May 12, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In an unanimous 99-0 vote, the Senate on Wednesday advanced a resolution to withhold pay from senators during a government shutdown.
Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts did not vote on the resolution, which was introduced by Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.
The vote was a procedural one. The legislation now moves toward final passage, and is expected to pass with resounding support.
The legislation, which would take effect after the November 2026 election, would instruct the secretary of the Senate to place senators’ paychecks on hold during the duration of any future federal government shutdowns. Those payments would be released to lawmakers only after the government reopens.
While multiple similar House bills have been introduced, it’s unclear if legislation in the lower chamber will pass.
“Take your brain with you, because this is about shared sacrifice. This is about putting our money where our mouth is,” Sen. Kennedy said on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday’s vote.
Kennedy’s resolution comes after federal workers faced a historic 43-day government shutdown late last year caused by a deadlock between parties over Affordable Care Act subsidies.
During that time, approximately 670,000 federal workers were furloughed, 60,000 workers outside the federal government lost their jobs and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients lost out on benefits all while members of Congress continued to get paid — highlighting the disparity of financial pain endured by members of Congress and the people they serve.
Calls for withholding pay from members of Congress continued to grow this year during the record 75-day partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Transportation Security Administration agents, Coast Guard members and other department employees went without pay as a stalemate played out on Capitol Hill over immigration enforcement funding and oversight reforms.
Sen. Ted Cruz questions Secretary of State Marco Rubio as he testifies during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 02, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — From calling it “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades” to calling President Donald Trump’s memorandum of understanding with Iran “out of step” with his stated objectives, several Republican senators have broken with the president over the agreement.
Core concerns from some of Trump’s closest Hill allies have revolved around the significant economic opportunity for Iran to rebuild with few concessions in return outlined in the short-term agreement Trump signed on Wednesday.
“I do have concerns that certain aspects of this deal are stepping in the wrong direction,” Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Fox News on Thursday.
“[Trump] deserves enormous credit for making Iran weaker than it’s been in decades, and we need to make sure that we don’t squander the leverage that we built across six years,” the Arkansas senator said.
Cotton’s comments are notable as he has been one of the Senate’s most hawkish voices on the war in Iran and has pushed the president to continue to attack the Iranian regime.
Others Republican senators had similar views of the deal, arguing that it gives Iran immediate relief on oil revenues and pledges to work to unfreeze $24 billion in Iranian assets and help create a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.
‘An exceptionally bad idea’
“History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think unfortunately the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said of the reconstruction fund. “I don’t want to see us send a penny to the ayatollah, and I hope that we don’t.”
“I support President Trump, and I think his leadership on Iran has been extraordinary. I believe he is getting poor advice, and I think sending billions of dollars to Iran is a mistake,” he added.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, of Mississippi, issued a bruising statement about the MOU, saying the proposal to create a $300 billion account to fund the rebuilding of Iran “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.”
The memorandum says the U.S. and Middle East partners would develop a $300 billion account for reconstruction and economic development, but Trump said the U.S. wouldn’t be contributing to it.
“We’re not putting up 10 cents,” Trump said Wednesday. “People can decide to do that, but that’s up to them.”
Wicker also said he opposes lifting sanctions on Iran, unfreezing Iranian assets or forcing Israel to stand down against Hezbollah.
“The Iranian regime has not renounced its ultimate goal — death to America, death to Israel. The regime wiill invest every penny it receives to further that aim,” Wicker said.
Additionally, while the agreement calls for the toll-free reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, senators said the future of the strait is unclear and could potentially open the door for Iran to impose fees for safe passage.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said whil. “some important things” have been accomplished by the campaign against Iran, “I’m afraid we will look back at this and see a missed opportunity to basically eliminate the threat going forward because there is nothing to stop the regime from beginning to block the Strait of Hormuz again basically at will.”
No demands of Iran on nuclear weapons
Senators also had concerns over the MOU not demanding that Iran destroy its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and that it doesn’t doesn’t provide a mechanism to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons in the future, which was one of Trump’s main objectives.
Instead the MOU says Iran reaffirms a longstanding commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon and to negotiate what to do with the country’s nuclear stockpile.
“Since Day 1, I have supported President Trump’s efforts to end Iran’s 47-year threat to the United States and our partners. I am concerned that the memorandum of understanding negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President’s goals,” Wicker said in his Thursday statement.
“The terms of the MOU that have been released start off at the outset with 10s of billions of dollars immediately being released to Iran before they make a single nuclear concession. I think that’s a mistake,” he said.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also expressed doubts about the agreement, saying, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed.”
Graham: Upside outweighs the downside
Other Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, voiced initial skepticism over the agreement but said he was cautiously optimistic that a possible future deal would ease his initial concerns.
While Graham said some of the criticism of the MOU is valid, without it “there’s no pathway to diplomacy to end the nuclear ambitions of Iran. What does that leave you with? War continuation of the status quo, so the upside of signing the MOU was greater, I think, than the downside.”
“Time will tell, but I’m glad we’re on the course on the path to diplomacy, and we’ll know in the coming weeks what kind of deal we will get.
Graham said he told Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff “Pursue a good deal, but be ready to walk away.”
The administration has pushed back on some of those criticisms saying the sanction relief and asset access it has made to Iran is tied to “very concrete nuclear commitments” Iran has made, as well as saying that there will be further negotiations toward a final agreement, calling the memorandum a framework, not a final agreement.
Vice President JD Vance addressed skeptics during a White House press briefing on Thursday.
“People say the Iranians will never change their behavior. Well, maybe that’s true,” he said. “And if so, they don’t get any of the benefits of the bargain. But isn’t it worth trying? Isn’t it worth seeing whether this incredibly weakened position that the president of the United States has put the Iranians under, whether that motivates them to change their behavior, not just vis-a-vis the West, but vis-a-vis the Middle East.”
Michael Banks, chief of the US Border Patrol, speaks during a news conference in Nogales, Arizona, US, on Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2026. (Ash Ponders/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Michael Banks, the head of U.S. Border Patrol, is stepping down, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott confirmed on Thursday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The Department of Education headquarters, May 28, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Al Drago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Two physician associate groups have sued the Trump administration over a federal rule limiting student loan borrowing for some graduate degree programs that impact healthcare professionals, including physician associates and assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners and other clinical providers.
The American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) and the Physician Associates Education Association (PAEA) filed a lawsuit aimed at reversing a Department of Education regulation that the plaintiffs claim violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They are separately requesting an emergency injunction that seeks to block the rule from taking effect for PA students on July 1.
The complaint also claims that the rule exceeds the Education Department’s statutory jurisdiction and is therefore unlawful. The Government Accountability Office website said the Administrative Procedure Act prescribes the minimum procedural steps an agency must follow in its administrative proceedings.
The lawsuit alleges the Education Department overstepped its legal authority by disqualifying a PA degree from being categorized as a professional degree.
The new rule entitled the Reimagining and Improving Student Education-Federal Student Loan Program (RISE) — which is based on an existing regulation — finalized the definition of “professional” and “graduate” programs, restricting student loan borrowing limits to $200,000 and $100,000 total for professional and graduate degrees respectively. The $100,000 total cost for PA students is capped at $20,500 annually.
AAPA’s CEO Lisa Gables said the rule will have “devastating consequences” for the PA workforce.
“PA programs meet every element of the professional degree definition that Congress established in law,” Gables wrote in a statement. “They award entry-level master’s degrees, require rigorous clinical training, and lead to professional licensure in all 50 states.”
She added, “We are in court to ensure the law is implemented as Congress intended.”
According to the Education Department’s final regulation, pharmacy and dentistry are among the list of eleven professional degree programs –- including medicine, law and clinical psychology degrees –- eligible for the $200,000 cap, but teaching, nursing, and physician associates are now capped at the lower limit.
The median PA program tuition is nearly $97,000 for residents before fees and additional costs, according to AAPA.
The recent move is drawing widespread concern from public service advocates as the healthcare groups stress that the federal loan limits will push many students to be dependent on private student loans, which have stricter approval requirements, unfavorable interest rates, and limited repayment plan options.
The rule would harm the associations’ ability to provide member services and advocacy and the groups’ members would also suffer “negative consequences” if PA students do not have access to the higher loan amounts that allow them to attend PA programs, according to the complaint.
Rory O’Sullivan, at D.C.-based policy think-tank Arnold Ventures, argued that loan limits should be based on degree program outcomes, not what field of study the degree is in.
Wednesday’s filing comes as 24 states and Washington, D.C., sued the administration on similar grounds in May, arguing that the rule would widen the nursing shortage because the borrowing limit would disincentivize students from entering the field.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon defended her department’s rule at an annual budget hearing on Capitol Hill last month.
“These particular programs have not been reclassified as nonprofessional,” McMahon said during the House Education committee hearing. “They were never classified as professional degrees – that just wasn’t a part of the equation.”
“There’s been no other measure that has been taken to try to bring down the cost of education,” McMahon contended.
The Department of Education emphasized that loan caps are “common sense” and place downward pressure on the cost of tuition across the country.
Ellen Keast, the press secretary for higher education at the Education Department, told ABC News in a statement, “For two decades, colleges and universities have been able to charge virtually unlimited tuition, even as many student loan borrowers see little to no return on their investment.”
“During this time, tuition has risen faster than any other household expense, and 71 percent of graduates with debt report delaying major life milestones, while institutions have taken in billions at the expense of young Americans’ financial stability,” Keast said.
She added: “The Trump Administration is working to correct this longstanding imbalance by ending a system that pushed students into debt they often could not repay and by promoting access to high quality education that serves students, not institutional bottom lines.”
‘My dream of being a PA is probably shot’
Wednesday’s complaint said the rule will burden students, like Ben Pinckney from New York, and deter them from applying to PA programs. The plaintiffs said it effectively creates scenarios where those aspiring PAs are unable to afford the cost of attendance because the vast majority of PA students need the higher loan limits authorized for the “professional student” to be able to attend PA school.
Pinckney told ABC News in an exclusive interview he has dreamed of becoming a PA for years but said he’s still struggling to find an affordable graduate school within the student loan caps. The 46-year-old recent college graduate said an emergency room PA saved his life when he was the victim of a shooting years ago and that inspired him to pursue medicine as a profession.
“Not only did he save my life in the physical, but [also with] the conversations we used to have,” Pinckney told ABC News, adding “My mentality and my way of thinking changed because of the PA.”
Pinckney, who later served in the U.S. Army as a combat medic, said he voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 but believes the Trump administration’s rule is “hurting both sides” by making the PA degree harder to obtain.
“It’s less about politics and more about helping providers or potential providers get the schooling they need, so that we can go into the communities that we want to go into and help those people,” Pinckney said.
PAs treat patients under the supervision of a physician in healthcare settings, including hospitals, doctors’ offices, and outpatient clinics, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Advocates stress that the department’s decision could strain critical patient care access and the majority of students pursuing PA degrees, who will comprise a significant share of the nation’s healthcare workforce over the next decade.
Pinckney said it’s heartbreaking because his goal of becoming a healthcare provider – within an already overburdened healthcare system – remains in limbo. “If nothing changes, then my dream of being a PA is probably shot,” Pinckney said. “If nothing is done short of someone giving me, you know, a huge grant or scholarship, then this chapter for me is over,” he later added.
