'We Hope So': Trump On MEGABILL Meeting July 4 Deadline
President Trump hosted a 'One Big, Beautiful Event' Thursday afternoon from the White House as the GOP "Megabill" full of his domestic priorities makes its way through Congress. Republican leaders have voiced optimism they can get the legislation to Trump's desk by July 4 — but that timeline has faced some road bumps due to internal divisions over certain spending cuts and tax provisions. The Senate parliamentarian has also rejected many of the House-passed measures. The president has pressured GOP holdouts to support the bill, even if it means pushing into the lawmakers' recess. Thursday's event has been billed as his last-ditch effort to win them over.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Michigan GOP Lawmaker When Asked If He Supports Women's Bodily Autonomy: 'I Don't'
Michigan Rep. Karl Bohnak (R-Deerton) has finally said what so many members of the GOP are too scared to say outright: they don't support women's bodily autonomy. Bohnak recently held an office hours event at a public library to take questions from his constituents. In audio obtained by the Heartland Signal, one Marquette resident mentioned how their community is now 'a healthcare desert' after the only Planned Parenthood clinic in the Upper Peninsula closed in April, and asked Bohnak whether he supported 'reproductive freedom.' While the Republican lawmaker said he supports 'reproductive clinics' that provide contraceptives or pre-cancer screenings, he wouldn't support a clinic that offers abortion care. Most Popular George Clooney Sounds Like a Lovely House Husband Ohio Woman Faces 'Abuse of a Corpse' Charge for Miscarriage in Another Post-Roe Nightmare Abortion Access Will, Once Again, Be Decided by the Supreme Court 'If you're talking about abortion, I'm not going to support an abortion clinic,' Bohnak said. The resident responded: 'So you don't support a woman's autonomy over her own body?' 'I don't,' Bohnak answered, making sure there was no room left for confusion. If there's anything that 2025 has taught me about the GOP, it's that they never know when to shut up. This confession is practically my Signalgate. Bohnak, who The Independent previously described as QAnon adjacent, was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in November, turning the U.P. entirely red by upsetting incumbent Democrat Jenn Hill. Before becoming a politician, Bohnak, who's skeptical of climate change, worked as a meteorologist. But he got fired in 2021 over his refusal to take the covid vaccine, claiming it violated the Nuremberg Code of 1947. During his campaign, Bohnak was repeatedly asked if he would vote to restrict abortion access, but—like every single GOP candidate in 2024—he refused to comment. If only he'd taken the same advice this time around. The U.P. is largely rural and isn't physically connected to the state's Lower Peninsula; instead, it branches off of northeast Wisconsin, which is currently fighting its own battle with abortion legislation. As the Marquette resident mentioned, Bohnak's district is now considered a reproductive healthcare desert, with the closest Planned Parenthood five hours south in the L.P.—though many clinics in the L.P. now offer travel accommodations for U.P. patients. In 2022, Michiganians did vote to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution—though needless hurdles to access remain. And, this week, on the anniversary of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs reminded hospitals of their duty 'to continue providing adequate and appropriate reproductive care to patients.' The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs should probably send a reminder to all of Michigan's lawmakers, too. They can start with Bohnak. Like what you just read? You've got great taste. Subscribe to Jezebel, and for $5 a month or $50 a year, you'll get access to a bunch of subscriber benefits, including getting to read the next article (and all the ones after that) ad-free. Plus, you'll be supporting independent journalism—which, can you even imagine not supporting independent journalism in times like these? Yikes.
San Francisco Chronicle
34 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Congo and Rwanda to sign US-mediated peace deal to end conflict in eastern Congo
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda are set to sign a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decadeslong deadly fighting in eastern Congo. The deal, to be signed in Washington Friday, would also help the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the conflict-battered, mineral-rich region. The Central African nation of Congo has been ripped apart by conflict with more than 100 armed groups. The most prominent is the M23 rebel group, backed by neighboring Rwanda, whose major advance early this year left bodies littered on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the U.N. has called it 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.' Lauded by President Trump last week as 'a Great Day for Africa and ... for the World,' the crucial deal comes as part of other ongoing peace talks to end the conflict, including ones mediated by the African Union as well as Qatar. The agreement involves provisions on respect for territorial integrity, a prohibition of hostilities as well as the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters on Thursday. U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric also said on Thursday that such a deal is welcomed, adding: 'We talk almost every day about … the horrific suffering of civilians, the hunger, the sexual violence, the constant fear, the constant displacement' in eastern Congo. The peace deal will likely not end the conflict quickly Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said it is defending its territorial interests and not supporting the M23. However, the M23 rebels have suggested the agreement won't be binding on them. The rebel group has not been directly involved in the planned peace deal although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks. Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance that includes the M23, told the Associated Press in March that direct peace talks with Congo can only be held if the country acknowledges their grievances and that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.' An M23 spokesman, Oscar Balinda, also echoed those thoughts in an interview with AP this week, saying the U.S.-facilitated deal does not concern the rebels. The US' role in ending the conflict Analysts say the U.S. government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under a separate minerals deal being negotiated. The mostly untapped minerals — estimated to be worth as much as $24 trillion by the U.S. Department of Commerce — are critical to much of the world's technology. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the planned deal a 'major turning point' in the decadeslong conflict, but that the signing could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.' 'The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor,' he said. 'This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation.' In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest hit by the fighting, some believe the peace deal will help resolve the violence but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace to take hold. 'I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100%,' said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. 'It is up to us to capitalize on all we have now as an opportunity.' —- AP writers Edith M. Lederer in New York, Justin Kabumba in Goma, Congo, Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Rules on Birthright Citizenship: What to Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court is meeting on Friday to decide the final cases of its term, including one concerning President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. Why It Matters The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that all children born in the United States are automatically American citizens. But the issue before the justices in Trump v. CASA is not the lawfulness of Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for some people. Rather, they are weighing whether judges have the authority to issue the nationwide, or universal, injunctions, that have blocked Trump's order from being implemented. The Trump administration has complained that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of only the parties involved. Such orders have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past decade, but they have emerged as an important check on Trump's agenda, increasingly frustrating the president and his allies. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2025. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Trump signed an executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily shortly on his first day back in office on January 20. Federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts have issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's order, with one calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." The Trump administration then made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court to narrow the court orders that have prevented his executive order from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. At oral arguments in May, the high court appeared highly skeptical on how Trump would implement the changes to birthright citizenship. But justices also showed signs they wanted to limit nationwide court orders. What People Are Saying Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, previously told Newsweek: "It's very possible, maybe even likely, that the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA. Some of the conservative justices, like Justice Gorsuch, have expressed concern that such injunctions give district judges the power to block federal laws nationwide. The Supreme Court may establish a rule to limit injunctions to the parties in the case or the district or circuit where the case is filed. Or it may require a higher standard to grant nationwide relief. Though the criticism of nationwide injunctions may be warranted, having inconsistent immigration holdings in different states may be its own problem. Immigration law needs to be uniform and applied consistently across the country." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social ahead of oral arguments in the case in May: "Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are! "The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it! We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America." Ama Frimpong, Legal Director for immigrant rights nonprofit CASA, said in a statement after oral arguments in the case: "This is not a law or policy that needs to be changed. Let's be clear about what this is. This is an attempt at white supremacy. This is an assault on Black and brown families. On our very existence. "What Trump and the administration are trying to do is erase our communities and our families from this country entirely. They want to deny citizenship to children born here—our children, our babies—just because their parents are immigrants." What's Next The justices take the bench at 10 a.m. for their last public session until the start of their new term on October 6. This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
