Trump administration live updates: Congress returns to Republican agenda bill
What to know today
Congress returns to Washington today from the weeklong Memorial Day recess to continue work on a House-passed bill to advance the GOP domestic policy agenda.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., defended proposed Medicaid cuts contained in the bill in an interview on NBC News' "Meet the Press," arguing the bill would impose "commonsense" work requirements for some recipients that were not "too cumbersome."
The Supreme Court starts its monthlong ruling season, with emergency cases related to Trump administration actions vying for the justices' attention alongside other contentious cases this term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
As feud escalates, Trump implies government could cut contracts and subsidies to Musk's companies
President Donald Trump has escalated his sudden rupture with Elon Musk by implying the government could sever ties with the tech titan's businesses. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Thursday afternoon. Trump's post comes in the midst of a stunning exchange between Musk and Trump that erupted Thursday when the president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was disappointed with Musk's criticism ofthe Republican policy bill that is making its way through Congress. Musk then launched into a tire on X, where he posted throughout early Thursday a variety of critiques of Trump, the bill and other Republican politicians. In response to another Trump post, Musk said the president was lying. Various estimates have put forward of just how much Musk's firms, primarily SpaceX and Tesla, benefit from government contracts and subsidies. The Washington Post has put the figure at $38 billion. The value of government support to SpaceX, which includes Musk's high-profile space-launch ventures in addition to its Starlink satellite subsidiary — is worth $22 billion alone according to comments made by SpaceX chief Gwynne Shotwell. Tesla has benefited from approximately $11.4 billion in regulatory credits aimed at boosting electric-vehicle purchases, though that figure also includes state subsidies. Reuters has reported that the true figure is classified due to the nature of many of the contracts Musk's firms are under. Shares in Tesla, which had already fallen 8% Thursday as the tit-for-tat escalated on social media, declined as much as 12% following Trump's post.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely
For any country, reviewing defence in the modern age is a valuable exercise. The UK's new strategic defence review fails to get to grips with those challenges, and perpetuates a view of security as being solely about the aggressive projection of military power. We do face direct threats that we need to acknowledge, not least from the brutal Putin regime. A military-only response risks seeing the whole world 'tooling up' for conflict, creating a tinderbox situation, and also misses the other action we can take which we know improves human security and makes conflict less likely. READ MORE: BBC Debate Night branded 'farce' as formal complaint made over 'bias' Strong international cooperation and a commitment to the international rule of law are critical to improving security, yet the UK continues to arm war criminal regimes instead of pursuing justice against them. Alliances must be fostered with countries we trust, and the threat of far-right regimes must be acknowledged. Yet the UK continues to treat the Trump regime as though it's a reliable ally, while it threatens democratic countries like Greenland and Canada. Food and water security, and so much else that international development invests in, also provide the basis for a more secure world. Yet the UK has followed the lead of the Trump White House by slashing development aid. The climate emergency is barely mentioned in the review, and where it does come up it's mostly about access to Arctic waters rather than the profound threat it poses to human and environmental security around the world. And of course the UK's continued attachment to nuclear weapons continues unabated. Reconsidering the vastly expensive replacement of Trident doesn't even merit a line. In truth, Trident poses a greater threat to the people of Scotland than it does to anyone else. Its record of accidents and poor maintenance goes back a long way, and its presence makes the west coast of Scotland a key target in any potential conflict. The hundreds of billions of pounds spent on these weapons could be far better spent on international development, climate action, or emerging issues like cybersecurity or biosecurity which can't be addressed by just hiking military spending. There's so much that's needed aside from military responses that can actually reduce the threats we face instead of funnelling even more funds towards nuclear weapons. Let's also remember that these are weapons which cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets, and whose use in any circumstances would surely be the biggest war crime in human history. Such a decision made now will lock us into a more dangerous world, for decades to come. And that decision would be at the expense of action that could be taken to promote peace, and make progress towards a world that's safer because it's fairer, greener, and more just. As for the claims about jobs, this truly is a red herring. Spend tens of billions on pretty much anything and you'll create jobs, and in truth there are far better ways to build an economy that works for people than making a '10 times more lethal' army. A defence review that really engages with the changing world we live in is something I'd really like to see. This simply isn't it.
