logo
Fearful of Trump's wrath, Congress abdicates its authority

Fearful of Trump's wrath, Congress abdicates its authority

Gulf Today5 days ago
Carl P. Leubsdorf,
Tribune News Service
The first six months of President Donald Trump's second administration have brought an unprecedented expansion of presidential power. They've also brought an unprecedented abdication of congressional authority. Fearful of incurring Trump's wrath — and perhaps primary opposition — Republican lawmakers have voted to confirm unqualified nominees, and rubber-stamped Medicaid cuts they acknowledged would hurt their constituents, often after proclaiming publicly they would never do so. Oversight committees, which are supposed to police the executive branch's management of legislation, are ignoring the administration's unconstitutional dismantling of statutory agencies and programmes — and complaining about the federal judges who are seeking to protect them.
Some members who represent swing districts or states with thousands of Medicaid recipients may face the wrath of voters next year. All of them should. There's no question which member of Congress put on the year's most hypocritical legislative performance. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri spent two months righteously condemning pending GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, noting it serves over one million Missourians. For Republicans 'to build our 'big, beautiful bill' around slashing health insurance for the working poor,' he wrote in The New York Times, 'is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' He then voted for it, citing a modest addition funding rural hospitals. Then, he introduced a bill to repeal some of the Medicaid cuts, an empty gesture destined never to see the light of day — or the Senate calendar.
Hawley was not the only GOP senator casting a damaging vote while expressing reservations. Sen. Lisa Murkowski gained some concessions for her Alaska constituents, then voted for the Trump package while expressing doubts about what she was doing.
'While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska,' she said, 'it is not good enough for the rest of our nation — and we all know it.' To be clear: the Senate would have rejected it had either Hawley or Murkowski voted on their stated principles. There was even less GOP resistance when the administration asked Congress to cancel $9 billion it had previously voted for, most for health and food aid to poor countries, the remainder for public radio and television.
Though the cuts will shut small public radio outlets in many states, most Republican senators kept silent as Democrats denounced their impact. Only two, Maine's Susan Collins and Murkowski, opposed the measure, safe votes since the administration had enough support without them. The Senate's hypocrisy was matched in the House. Sixteen Republicans vowed resistance to the Medicaid cuts drafted by the House Budget Committee. 'Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent,' they wrote GOP leaders. 'Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers.' Signatories were Reps. David Valadao and Young Kim, Ca.; Juan Ciscomani, Az.; Rob Bresnahan Jr., Pa.; Chuck Edwards, NC; Andrew Garbarino, Michael Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis, NY; Jen Kiggans and Robert Wittman, Va.; Jefferson Van Drew, NJ; Don Bacon, Ne; Dan Newhouse, WA.; Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Ia.; and Jeff Hurd, Co.
But all 16 subsequently backed it after gaining an increase in the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which benefits mainly middle- and upper-income taxpayers. All 16 later acquiesced in even more sweeping Medicaid cuts added by the Senate. Legislative issues were not the only places where GOP senators abandoned stated principles amid administration pressure. Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Joni Ernst of Iowa cast the decisive votes to confirm the two most manifestly unqualified Trump Cabinet secretaries after obtaining promises the two nominees abandoned once approved. Cassidy said Secretary of Health and Services-nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., if confirmed, 'will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' recommendations without changes.' Soon after taking office, Kennedy removed all 17 panel members, replacing some with outspoken critics of government-mandated immunization for the nation's children. Ernst expressed concern about Secretary of Defense-nominee Pete Hegseth's stated opposition to women in combat roles and sought a commitment to having a senior-level military official dedicated to sexual assault response and prevention.
'Women will have access to ground-combat roles, given the standards remain high,' Hegseth testified. While he has not reversed the Obama administration's decision placing women in combat roles, he announced a review of physical fitness standards that could have that effect. Hegseth has not yet announced an official to monitor sexual assault issues, but he has continued his purge of high-level women officers, most recently removing the US Naval Academy's first female superintendent. Both Cassidy and Ernst face re-election races in 2026, and both feared Trump-endorsed primary challenges.
In fact, some Trump supporters sought to pressure Ernst before she backed Hegseth — including a column by a potential primary foe, Iowa state Attorney General Brenda Bird. GOP-led congressional committees have been no better.
The principal House investigative committee, which spent the last two years unsuccessfully trying to find a way to impeach Joe Biden, has switched its focus to whether the former president's declining health led aides to exercise his duties, despite the lack of evidence they did. Rather than probe the current administration's manifest irregularities, they're investigating hearsay about the prior one. One thing the past six months have shown is that, when casting votes or confirming nominees, there is little difference between so-called 'conservative' Republicans and so-called 'moderate' ones. When it comes to backing Trump, they are all on board.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump slams London mayor again on UK visit
Trump slams London mayor again on UK visit

Sharjah 24

timean hour ago

  • Sharjah 24

Trump slams London mayor again on UK visit

Asked by a reporter if he intended to come to London in September during a state visit, Trump responded affirmatively but then clarified: "I'm not a fan of your mayor. I think he's done a terrible job." "The Mayor of London... a nasty person," he added. The comments prompted Starmer to state: "He's a friend of mine, actually." But doubling down on his view of Khan, Trump went on: "I think he's done a terrible job. But I would certainly visit London." There is no love lost between Trump and Khan, like Starmer a member of the Labour Party. In January, on the eve of Trump's return to the White House, Khan penned an article warning of western "reactionary populists" posing a "century-defining challenge" for progressives. During his first term in power, Khan also became embroiled in a war of words after speaking out against a US travel ban on people from certain Muslim countries. Trump then accused Khan, the first Muslim mayor of a Western capital when he was first elected in 2016, of doing a "very bad job on terrorism", calling him a "stone cold loser" and "very dumb". In a podcast recorded before Trump's re-election on November 5, 2024, Khan accused the incoming president of targeting him because of the colour of his skin. "He's come for me because of, let's be frank, my ethnicity and my religion," he said. But in a interview with AFP in December, Khan said the American people had "spoken loudly and clearly" and "we have got to respect the outcome of the presidential elections". In a statement later Monday, a spokesperson for Khan said the mayor was "delighted that President Trump wants to come to the greatest city in the world". "He'd see how our diversity makes us stronger not weaker; richer, not poorer," he added.

Trump sets new deadline of 10 or 12 days for Russia to act on Ukraine
Trump sets new deadline of 10 or 12 days for Russia to act on Ukraine

ARN News Center

time3 hours ago

  • ARN News Center

Trump sets new deadline of 10 or 12 days for Russia to act on Ukraine

US President Donald Trump set a new deadline on Monday of 10 or 12 days for Russia to make progress toward ending the war in Ukraine or face consequences, underscoring frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin for the conflict. Trump has threatened both sanctions on Russia and buyers of its exports unless progress is made. The fresh deadline suggests the US president is prepared to move forward on those threats after previous hesitation to do so. Speaking in Scotland, where he is holding meetings with European leaders and playing golf, Trump said he was disappointed in Putin and shortening a 50-day deadline he had set on the issue earlier this month. "I'm going to make a new deadline of about ... 10 or 12 days from today," Trump told reporters during a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. "There's no reason in waiting... We just don't see any progress being made." There was no immediate comment from the Kremlin. In a post on X, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, a close ally of Putin, said Trump was playing "a game of ultimatums" that could lead to a war involving the US. Medvedev wrote: "Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with (Trump's) own country." Ukraine welcomed Trump's statement. Andriy Yermak, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's chief of staff, thanked Trump in a social media post for "standing firm and delivering a clear message of peace through strength." Trump, who has expressed annoyance also with Zelenskyy, has not always followed tough talk about Putin with action, citing what he deems a good relationship that the two men have had previously. On Monday, Trump indicated he was not interested in more talks with Putin. He said sanctions and tariffs would be used as penalties for Moscow if it did not meet Trump's demands. "There's no reason to wait. If you know what the answer is going to be, why wait? And it would be sanctions and maybe tariffs, secondary tariffs," Trump said. "I don't want to do that to Russia. I love the Russian people." Ukraine had proposed a summit between Putin and Zelenskyy before the end of August, but the Kremlin has said that timeline was unlikely and that a meeting could only happen as a final step to clinch peace. Russia's foreign ministry said on Saturday that if the West wanted real peace with Ukraine, it would stop supplying Kyiv with weapons. Trump has repeatedly voiced exasperation with Putin for pursuing attacks on Ukraine despite US efforts to end the war. He has played up successes in other parts of the world where the United States has helped to broker peace agreements and has been flattered by some leaders who suggest he should be given the Nobel Peace Prize. "I'm disappointed in President Putin," Trump said on Monday. "I'm going to reduce that 50 days that I gave him to a lesser number because I think I already know the answer what's going to happen." Trump, who is also struggling to achieve a peace deal in Gaza, has touted his role in ending conflicts between India and Pakistan as well as Rwanda and Congo. Before returning to the White House in January, Trump campaigned on a promise to end Russia's conflict with Ukraine in a day.

'Nasty person': Trump slams London Mayor Sadiq Khan again, says he's 'not a fan'
'Nasty person': Trump slams London Mayor Sadiq Khan again, says he's 'not a fan'

Khaleej Times

time4 hours ago

  • Khaleej Times

'Nasty person': Trump slams London Mayor Sadiq Khan again, says he's 'not a fan'

US President Donald Trump attacked London's Mayor Sadiq Khan once again at a news conference in Scotland alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who interjected that Khan was his "friend". Asked by a reporter if he intended to come to London in September during a state visit, Trump responded affirmatively but then clarified: "I'm not a fan of your mayor. I think he's done a terrible job." "The Mayor of London... a nasty person," he added. The comments prompted Starmer to state: "He's a friend of mine, actually." But doubling down on his view of Khan, Trump went on: "I think he's done a terrible job. But I would certainly visit London." In January, on the eve of Trump's return to the White House, Khan penned an article warning of western "reactionary populists" posing a "century-defining challenge" for progressives. During his first term in power, Khan also became embroiled in a war of words after speaking out against a US travel ban on people from certain Muslim countries. Trump then accused Khan, the first Muslim mayor of a Western capital when he was first elected in 2016, of doing a "very bad job on terrorism", calling him a "stone cold loser" and "very dumb". In a podcast recorded before Trump's re-election on November 5, 2024, Khan accused the incoming president of targeting him because of the colour of his skin. "He's come for me because of, let's be frank, my ethnicity and my religion," he said. But in a interview with AFP in December, Khan said the American people had "spoken loudly and clearly" and "we have got to respect the outcome of the presidential elections". In a statement later Monday, a spokesperson for Khan said the mayor was "delighted that President Trump wants to come to the greatest city in the world". "He'd see how our diversity makes us stronger not weaker; richer, not poorer," he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store