Reconciliation: GOP strips language targeting nonprofits; Trump talks pipelines
House Republicans axed a section of their party-line megabill Monday that would have given the Trump administration more power over nonprofits' tax-exempt status.
The move happened ahead of President Donald Trump's meeting with GOP lawmakers Tuesday morning. His goal was to urge them to advance the tax cut, energy and national security budget reconciliation package as soon as possible.
One point of contention delaying progress is the fate of climate law tax credits. Trump also discussed pipelines after leaders struck a provision on permitting.
Advertisement
When it comes to the language affecting nonprofits, the package had at one point included a measure to allow the Treasury secretary to revoke tax-exempt status for groups deemed to have supported terrorist organizations.
Environmental group leaders sounded alarm bells that Trump could use such authority to punish organizations who countered his objectives.
But the language was struck from the megabill in an updated version posted on the House Rules Committee's website Monday.
A spokesperson for Rep. David Kustoff (R-Tenn.), who championed the proposal, said the language did not adhere to Senate rules requiring budget reconciliation legislation — meant to bypass the filibuster — to have a clear fiscal nexus.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group was surprised to see the provision stripped out while the megabill moved through the House. They were expecting to have to appeal to the Senate parliamentarian.
'We're cautiously optimistic,' Hamadanchy said. 'It looks like we're OK on reconciliation, but the expectation is this will come back from the dead at some point, and we're going to have to continue to make sure it doesn't become law.'
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that the elimination of the provision from the megabill is 'good news for all nonprofits.'
Pipelines
Republicans on Monday axed two measures that would have allowed accelerated permitting for pipeline developers willing to pay high fees. And they removed a number of funding clawbacks at the Department of Energy.
Trump spoke about the need to accelerate pipeline permitting. The legislation still includes measures to accelerate National Environmental Policy Act reviews and natural gas exports.
'He talked about getting pipelines approved,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said. 'We've been trying to get some kind of approval on pipelines in the bill to expedite permitting. This has been a problem for a long time.'
Asked whether stripped provisions could be inserted back in the legislation, Scalise demurred. 'We're going to go talk about what we're going to do to expedite permitting in America.'
Tax credits
Still up for debate is the future of clean energy credits established in the Democrats' 2022 climate law. Some GOP hardliners have said the current bill does not go far enough in repealing the credits. But over a dozen moderates want the bill revised to make the credits usable for a longer period of time.
One of those lawmakers, Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), who is also pushing for higher state and local tax deductions, said Trump did little to quell concerns.
'There's a lot of problems if they put the bill on the floor as is,' Garbarino said.
Industry pressure has been increasing. The Solar Energy Industries Association launched a new campaign, Solar Under Threat, in response to GOP plans to scrap or limit Inflation Reduction Act incentives.
On Tuesday, the American Clean Power Association released a report saying clean energy manufacturing pumps in $18 billion a year into the gross domestic product and that nearly three-quarters of new clean energy manufacturing plants are in red states.
'For American energy manufacturers to continue creating jobs and strengthening our economy, we need policy certainty,' ACP said, specifically naming the clean energy credits.
Trump on Tuesday did not appear to be in a negotiating mood. Concerning divisions about Medicaid, the president said, 'Don't fuck around with Medicaid,' according to two Republicans granted anonymity to describe private conversations.
Reporter Meredith Lee Hill contributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
9 minutes ago
- Fox News
Will Rubio move to ban Chinese students from the US?
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Protest erupts after immigration raid, police in standoff
CBS News
10 minutes ago
- CBS News
Police cast wide net in probe of defunct North Texas car dealership's business practices
Desire Godfrey said it was time for a vehicle upgrade. The Lancaster mother had her eye on a Lexus. "I had a baby, so I'm looking for something reliable for me and a baby," Godfrey said. She searched online and found what she thought was the right vehicle at The Reserve Auto Group in The Colony. She described the sales process in May 2024 as a positive experience. Warranty and GAP insurance issues But an unexpected oil change six months later changed everything. Godfrey, 33, said a Lexus dealership informed her the vehicle was not under warranty. She also discovered her GAP insurance policy didn't exist. "They (Reserve Auto Group) never paid the warranty company the money they were supposed to pay to activate this warranty and this GAP insurance," she said. Car loan charges continue Godfrey said the costs were included in her car note. She filed a report with The Colony Police Department — and she's not alone. Police said they received their first complaint on Jan. 31. According to a news release, police have been investigating multiple fraud claims connected to the dealership since 2023. The business shut down in December 2024, but complaints continue to come in. Alleged auto fraud pattern Investigators said customers were allegedly instructed to write separate checks for aftermarket warranties or GAP insurance policies. Those payments were supposed to go to third-party providers, but police said the dealership allegedly cashed the checks and never forwarded the money — leaving customers without coverage. Another victim comes forward A second alleged victim, who spoke to CBS News Texas anonymously, said she and her husband also bought a Lexus from the dealership. She provided a non-activation letter from DOWC Administrative Services LLC, a company that offers GAP insurance and warranties. The letter stated: "Please be advised that Reserve Auto has failed to remit payment to Us as the Administrator and Provider for your Contract. Consequently, the Contract was not activated in our system." Investigation still ongoing Police have not made any arrests or publicly identified anyone associated with the allegations. Officers said they are continuing to vet additional alleged victims. CBS News Texas is not naming the person listed as the dealership's owner, as police have indicated he did nothing wrong. He spoke briefly by phone, saying he wanted to schedule an appointment to discuss the claims further because he believed "we did not have all the facts." When asked for clarification, he said he didn't have time to explain. Legal team responds Two emails followed the call, and attorneys from Herrin Law introduced themselves. "We have no comment at this time. Thank you for your interest in our client's side of the story," attorney Benjamin Palatiere said. He requested that all future inquiries be directed to him. Buyer left without coverage Meanwhile, Godfrey said the vehicle itself has not had any issues. But she continues to pay for a warranty and insurance that don't exist. "So nobody wants to refinance the loan. Nobody wants to give me GAP insurance," she said. "It's just more so like I'm going to take it or leave it. If I wreck the car, then I would have to figure out a way to pay that car off." Godfrey said she hopes to recover the money one day.
CBS News
20 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"
