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) — In federal courthouses across the country Thursday, President Donald Trump’s administration faced a series of legal setbacks to implementing the president’s agenda.
On issues ranging from education policy and voting rights to congestion pricing, the series of rulings and developments marked the latest legal setbacks for an administration battling nearly 200 lawsuits in court.
Three separate judges — including two appointed by Trump — blocked the government from withholding federal funds to schools with DEI programs.
In California, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary jurisdictions where local police refuse to help with enforcement of federal immigration policy.
After Trump attempted to reshape elections with an executive order last month, a federal judge blocked the government from requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, saying only Congress has the power to institute such a change.
On immigration issues, the Trump administration is in hot water with multiple judges. A Boston judge is probing whether the Trump administration violated a court order when it removed four alleged members of Tren de Aragua to El Salvador, and a judge in Maryland appointed by the president ordered Wednesday the return of a man deported to El Salvador whose deportation violated a court settlement.
In New York, DOJ lawyers accidentally revealed an internal document acknowledging the shortcomings in their plan to kill congestion pricing.
Friday is set to bring a new legal issue to the forefront, with a federal judge in Boston taking up whether the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education are lawful. The hearing will mark the first time a federal judge has considered the issue since Trump issued an executive order last month directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take steps to shrink the department.
(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 broadly 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.
“I don’t think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don’t think it’s necessary,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday afternoon at the Capitol.
Fears of escalation ramped up on Monday as Iran retaliated against the U.S. with a missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. The missiles were intercepted and there were no immediate reports of casualties at the base, according to U.S. officials.
Johnson said it’s up to Trump whether the United States responds to Iran’s attempt to retaliate on Monday.
“The president warned them not to retaliate, but he was also very clear that the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a threat not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to the United States as well. They’ve been very clear about their intentions and how much they hate us,” Johnson said. “The president made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander in chief.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed skepticism about Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend.
“We’ve seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution,” Jeffries said at a news conference in the Capitol on Monday. “And what I can say is not a scintilla of evidence to date has been presented that I have seen to justify the notion that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America.”
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.
ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday told Senate Republicans to lock themselves in a room if necessary to work out their differences and pass the megabill that will fund his second-term agenda.
“To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don’t go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK,” Trump posted on his social media platform while on his way to the NATO summit in the Netherlands. “Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE.”
Both the Senate and House are under pressure to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill and get it to Trump’s desk by July 4.
Speaker Mike Johnson warned House Republicans Tuesday that their Independence Day celebrations may be in jeopardy as the House waits for the Senate to complete its changes to the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and the speaker sticks to the Fourth of July deadline.
While the House is scheduled to leave town Friday for a week back in their districts, the speaker set off his own fireworks — telling his conference that members will not be dismissed for recess until the House approves the Senate’s changes.
“I said to keep your schedules flexible. July 4 is always a district work period. This is tradition, so everybody can go home and celebrate the Fourth of July with their constituents and their families,” Johnson said. “But this — there’s nothing more important that we should be involved in, or can be involved in than getting one big, beautiful bill to the president’s desk. So if the Senate does its work on the timeline that we expect, we will do our work as well. And I think everybody’s ready for that.”
The bill would make the Trump 2017 tax cuts permanent, allocate additional funding for border security and the Department of Defense, scale back Medicaid and SNAP benefits, limit taxes on tips and overtime, change state and local tax caps, and do far more.
Republicans are attempting to pass the bill using budget reconciliation, a procedure that allows them to sidestep Senate rules that normally require 60 votes to pass legislation and to instead pass the bill with a simple majority.
A KFF poll released Tuesday suggests nearly two-thirds of the public views the One Big Beautiful Bill Act unfavorably, by nearly twice as much who view it favorably, 35% to 64% of those polled.
When those polled learned the impact the bill would have on health care — for example, increasing the number of people without insurance and decreasing funding to hospitals — support fell, even among MAGA supporters.
The poll found 83% of the public, including 74% of Republicans, have a favorable view of Medicaid, and 66% have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act.
Senate Republicans met behind closed doors Monday night to go over the latest contours of their version of the bill as Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough continued to go through the bill to ensure provisions are within the scope of using reconciliation.
Her rulings have already rankled some Republican plans, and Monday’s meeting appeared to have focused largely on how they intend to retool their provisions for compliance.
A lot remains outstanding, but there’s general optimism in the conference that a floor vote this week is still possible.
The meeting also took into account “considerations as to what the president wants,” according to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., who said she still expects the bill to make it to the floor later this week.
Johnson said Tuesday he expects the Senate to vote on Friday or Saturday — after the lower chamber had been expected to conclude its legislative work period — potentially pushing the House’s consideration of the Senate’s changes into next week.
There remains a number of challenges that Republicans must address between now and then. Here’s where things stand on some of the key provisions:
State and local taxes
The House and Senate have been divided on this issue as Senate Republicans have made clear they want to modify language in the House bill that some House moderates could balk at.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., who has been leading negotiations over SALT said Monday that the Senate has more or less reached a place of “acceptance” on SALT. The proposal, he said, won’t touch the $40,000 cap negotiated in the House, but it will alter the income threshold.
“It’s not going to lose any votes,” Mullin said, speaking for his conference. “But, as I said, it’s not a joyful spot for any of us to be in. I’ll be happy when this is done, and then we can move on.”
But Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday that the SALT caucus of five House Republicans has banded together to create a bloc that could defeat a vote given Johnson’s slim three-vote majority.
“I hope they recognize the reality that five very salty House Republicans will vote no if they break apart on that deal,” LaLota said.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Capito said that provisions on SNAP were the most “upended” by the parliamentarian. Her ruling threatens to lessen the savings to the federal government that Republicans are hoping the bill will achieve.
Some of Monday’s meeting focused on the parliamentarian’s ruling that a provision that would require states to share the cost of the SNAP was out of order.
Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee that has jurisdiction over SNAP, said that Republicans are aiming to retool the SNAP provision to make it compliant with Senate rules.
“What we’re trying to do is give the states more time to understand what they’re dealing with so they can respond,” Boozman said.
Rural hospitals
Perhaps the biggest thorn in the Senate’s side right now is an ongoing debate about Medicaid cuts — specifically how alterations of the provider tax rate could hamstring rural hospitals in some states.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said Tuesday that moving the Senate’s version of the bill on provider tax rates back to the House’s framework would “absolutely” solve issues on the provision.
“What needs to happen now is that the leader needs to get with the rural hospitals, and he needs to satisfy their concerns and make sure that they can stay open. I mean, that will solve the problem of the House, too. You got the House out there now saying they can’t pass the Senate version of this bill,” Hawley said.
“This is not a game of chicken. This is real now, it’s like, this is — this is not like some Model UN or student government. Like, this is a real deal. So they need to get with the House. They need to get with the speaker. Make sure that they can pass this bill,” Hawley added.
ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
