Trump to sign controversial spending bill during White House 4th of July celebrations
Kevin Carter/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is slated to use the White House’s Fourth of July celebrations as the backdrop for his final victory lap over his massive spending bill.
The president will sign the legislation, which will bring massive cuts to government benefits such as Medicaid and increase funding for immigration enforcement, during the White House’s military family picnic on Friday evening.
It is unclear what guests will attend the signing event or if the picnic’s fireworks will take place during that time.
Trump pushed Congress to pass the bill by July 4th as some Republicans held out over several issues, including the bill’s effect on the debt ceiling.
“There could be no better birthday present for America than the phenomenal victory we achieved just hours ago when Congress passed the ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’ to Make America Great Again,” Trump said in Iowa on Thursday, after the House passed the bill.
The White House celebrations for the Fourth of July will include several flyovers, including one featuring B-2 bombers. The president said Thursday that the flyover will occur at the same time he signs the bill; however, the White House has not confirmed the timing of that event.
Democrats criticized the president and the bill’s supporters over its cuts to services that help the poorest Americans. The bill institutes work requirements for Medicaid that some experts say will make millions of Americans uninsured, and makes cuts to the program that will result in closures of health centers in rural areas, according to health care employers.
On Thursday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries broke the chamber’s record with an eight-hour, 44-minute speech decrying the bill.
“We wanted to make sure that the American people had an opportunity to fully and more completely understands, in the light of day, just how damaging this one big, ugly bill will be to the American people,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump nears the 100th day of his second presidency, polling shows Americans largely disapproving of his handling of the economy, tariffs, and recent stock market turmoil.
But his 2024 voters largely say they’re still confident in his handling of the economy, and they overwhelmingly stand by their vote for Trump.
“I believe Trump will turn things around; I’m glad he’s president,” said Jessianna Bartier, 53, of Ohio. “With Biden, I felt there was so much waste. He was causing a lot of damage economically,” she said, and she had felt depressed by the former president’s efforts. “Trump has definitely got his work cut out for him.”
According to a new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, only 39% of Americans approve of how Trump has handled the economy; fewer approve of his handling of tariffs on imported goods or recent stock market turmoil. Seventy-one percent of Americans said that Trump’s handling of tariffs will contribute to inflation in the United States, although 59% think tariffs will create more manufacturing jobs.
But among Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, 87% approve of how he is handling the economy, while 78% approve of his handling of tariffs. A softer 71% said they approve of his handling of recent turmoil in the stock market.
Furthermore, among 2024 Trump voters, 74% think his economic policies will put the U.S. economy on a stronger foundation for the long term; at the same time, 45% of those voters think it’s very or somewhat likely that his economic policies will cause a recession in the short term.
An overwhelming 96% of those who voted for Trump believe how they voted was the right thing to do.
Bartier, a former flight attendant, now works as a bartender and lives in Ohio. She said she used to be a Democrat but became Republican as she “started dating more mature men.” She said she has always voted because “my voice matters.”
Bartier said her family is struggling financially at the moment, because her fiance lost his job and her own income is “definitely not enough.”
But she’s optimistic that Trump will be able to strengthen the economy.
She has mixed feelings about Trump on some issues, saying she appreciates his border crackdown but is at odds with his views on LGBTQ issues and abortion.
But on tariffs, she said she feels they may cause challenges at first but will be effective later on — although the recent stock market turmoil does give her pause.
“I think the tariffs are, in the short term, going to hurt us economically; but in the long term, [they’re] going to bring back jobs to America,” she said. She acknowledged feeling uncertain about how the tariff news impacted stocks: “Do I like seeing the Dow go down on itself? No.”
“[Trump’s] gonna do what he’s gonna do. He’s kind of a rogue agent,” Bartier added.
Anthony Romano, 64, a retired purchasing agent who lives by himself in Philadelphia, said he feels positive about Trump but has some concerns about the stock market.
“Overall I think he’s doing a really good job,” Romano said, but he added that it “seems like the stock market has been crashing — it’ll put a lot of stress on people.”
Stocks have fluctuated in the wake of what some experts described as continued uncertainty over the White House’s tariff policies and announcements. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that the White House is “setting the fundamentals for a strong dollar, a strong economy, a strong stock market”.
Romano said he’s still confident in the president, citing Trump’s experience as a businessman.
“I have my trust in him; he knows what he’s doing,” he said.
Another of Trump’s voters who took the poll, Deborah Williams, 71, of Nevada, considers herself an independent politically and said she just retired from running a home-based business. Her husband, 78, has a part-time job and earns minimum wage.
She said she’s keeping an eye on the economy, especially given their dwindled income, and is “cautious about where I’m spending my money these days,” including with travel.
On tariffs, she has mixed feelings. She’s concerned they could impact prices and may be being done too bluntly, but called Trump’s philosophy behind them “a noble idea.”
“I want America to be the tough kid on the block again,” Williams said, and she does not want think Americans should be paying for or subsidizing other countries’ expenses. “Trump’s my man for doing that at this point,” she said, adding later, “He has the opportunity to put our economy back together by playing hardnose with some of these people we import from.”
The poll only asks respondents for their first names; some respondents contacted by ABC News declined to share their last name.
Irene, 63, who works for the library and local government in a northern New Jersey town, told ABC News that she has mixed feelings over how the Trump administration has rolled out tariffs.
“I’m kind of favorable for the tariffs, because I think we have been taken advantage of by different countries,” she said. “It’s just that, maybe he’s going a little overboard or too fast with all of this. And the tariffs are going to affect a lot more than they were originally going to.”
She hasn’t felt any impact on her or her family’s finances yet. Asked what she hopes to see from the White House going forward, she said she was hoping for the economy she felt America had during the first Trump administration.
“I look back to when he was in the office the first four years, and I just felt like the economy was in better shape,” she said, mentioning interest rates and gas prices. “I was kind of hoping we could get somewhere towards that point.”
She also told the poll she feels a recession is somewhat likely, and she hopes it does not impact the jobs she holds or her finances.
“But I’m at the point where I’m trying to get in a better financial position, just in case that recession should happen, it won’t hit me as hard,” she said.
That has not caused her to rethink how she voted for Trump in November: “I’m still behind my vote because I definitely didn’t have a good feeling about the Democrats,” she said.
The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 18-22, 2025, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,464 adults. Partisan divisions are 30%-30%-29%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
Results have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, including the design effect. Error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
(WASHINGTON) — Longtime Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced Wednesday that he will not seek reelection in 2026 and will retire after serving for over four decades in Congress.
“In my heart, I know it’s time to pass the torch,” Durbin said in the video. “The threats to our democracy and way of life are real, and I can assure you that I will do everything in my power to fight for Illinois and the future of our country every day of my remaining time in the Senate.”
Durbin, 80, has served in the Senate since 1997 and won reelection to the Senate four times. Coupled with his time in the House, Durbin has served in Congress for 44 years.
“We are also fortunate to have a strong Democratic bench ready to serve,” Durbin said in the video. “We need them now more than ever.”
His departure will set up a contentious race among Illinois Democrats vying to fill the seat in a solidly blue state.
“It has been an honor serving alongside Sen. Dick Durbin in Congress. I have long admired his focus on creating jobs in Illinois, bringing down costs for working families and protecting benefits for veterans and seniors,” Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., said following Durbin’s announcement. “As a dedicated public servant for more than four decades, Sen. Durbin has been a strong voice for Illinoisans, ushering into law many historic bills as a long-time leader in the U.S. Senate. I am grateful for the legacy he leaves behind that has helped improve millions of our Illinois neighbors.”
It will also leave a void in Democratic leadership in the Senate. Durbin, as Democratic whip, has served as the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat since 2004. Now, Democrats will need to reshuffle to fill Durbin’s position.
There are a number of younger Senate Democrats who have been working to make names for themselves this Congress, and its not clear who might jump into that leadership race. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is currently the No. 3 Senate Democrat, and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., is the No. 4 Senate Democrat. Either of them could enter the contest.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., praised Durbin in a statement following the announcement.
“Dick Durbin has been more than a colleague — he’s been a trusted partner, one of the most respected voices in the Senate for decades, my dear friend, and, of course, my former roommate,” Schumer said. “His deep commitment to justice, his tireless advocacy for Americans in need, and his wisdom in leadership have left an indelible mark on this institution, the United States, and his beloved Illinois. The Senate — and the country — are better because of his service. To my friend, Dick: Thank you, for everything.”
Durbin has served as the top Democrat, in his capacity as either chairman or ranking member, of the Senate Judiciary Committee since 2021. He helped to confirm 235 federal judges under former President Joe Biden.
Durbin is now the fourth Democrat to announce plans not to run in 2026. Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Tina Smith, D-Minn., are also retiring. Sen. Michael Bennet is running for Colorado governor despite his term not ending until 2028, and if he wins, he will vacate a fifth Democratic seat.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s strike against Iran will be met with pushback on Capitol Hill this week as some lawmakers argue the military action was unconstitutional.
There are several bipartisan resolutions that could receive a vote in coming days that may put some lawmakers in uncomfortable positions as they consider whether Trump ignored the role of Congress in striking Tehran.
It’s unlikely though, at this stage, that Trump’s rank-and-file Republican base will abandon him by supporting these bills. If any were to make it to Trump’s desk, there likely wouldn’t be enough votes to override his veto.
Trump’s decision to hit Iran in the stated aim of wiping out its nuclear capabilities follows a decades-long pattern of presidents taking military action and not waiting for Congress to sign off. Other examples include Joe Biden’s airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama’s military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as well as George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama.
House and Senate lawmakers are expected to receive briefings on the Iran strike on Tuesday.
Trump faces bipartisan blowback Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a War Powers Resolution last week to prohibit “United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading a similar Senate resolution, which could come up sometime this week as the chamber tries to move forward with a megabill to fund much of Trump’s domestic policy agenda.
All three appeared on “Face the Nation” on CBS News on Sunday to make their case.
Massie contended there was “no imminent threat to the United States” that would authorize the president to strike Iran without congressional approval.
Kaine similarly said: “This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump’s urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops’ lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress.”
Kaine added that he hopes Republicans push back.
“I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously,” the Virginia Democrat said.
Khanna warned there is a possibility the strike is not a one-time occurrence.
“There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail,” Khanna said on CBS. “We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we’re not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East.”
Trump lashed out at Massie in a lengthy social media post on Sunday, writing the Republican congressman is “not MAGA” and that “MAGA doesn’t want him” and “doesn’t respect him.” Trump said he’ll campaign for Massie’s Republican primary opponent in the next election.
Congress has twice before called out Trump on his use of military force without congressional approval.
In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed. In 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In response, Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran, which was again quickly rejected by Trump.
What is the 1973 War Powers Resolution? The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna seeking to limit Trump’s ability to take U.S. military action against Iran cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
It also states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
Trump admin says strike was legally justified
Top officials defended the military action over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration “complied with the notification requirements” of the War Powers Resolution, saying members of Congress were notified “after the planes were safely out.”
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also sought to emphasize the U.S. is not at war with Iran.
Trump, though, warned that more strikes could come if Iran doesn’t negotiate a deal.
“If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,” he said in his address to the nation on Saturday night.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of military action against Iran leading up to Trump’s decision, argued on NBC News that Trump has all the authority he needs under Article II of the Constitution.
“Congress can declare war or cut off funding,” Graham said. “We can’t be the commander in chief. You can’t have 535 commanders-in-chief.”
The administration could also cite an existing military authorization as grounds for legal justification for striking against Iran.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by Congress that authorized counterterrorism operations by U.S. military forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congress passed another AUMF targeting Iraq in 2002. Both have since been cited to authorize military force in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia due to the broad language in the resolutions.
Critics have often said the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs grant the president powers to unilaterally wage “perpetual worldwide wars” and some lawmakers have been keen to repeal it — but those efforts have all been unsuccessful.
