Senator Bill Cassidy Joins the Guy Benson Show, Talks the Big Beautiful Bill, Israel Ceasefire, and MAHA
Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican from Louisiana, HELP Committee Chairman, and former physician, joined The Guy Benson Show today to break down the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, calling it potentially President Trump's 'finest hour' if it holds. Cassidy also weighed in on RFK Jr.'s controversial vaccine panel, arguing that more medical expertise is needed before the board convenes. And when it comes to Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, Cassidy expressed confidence that Senate Republicans will ultimately pass a version of it. You can listen to the full interview below!
Listen to the full interview below:
Listen to the full podcast below:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
NATO commits to higher spending sought by Trump and mutual defense
While Trump got what he wanted at the brief NATO summit, his allies will be relieved he committed to the fundamental principle of collective defense. THE HAGUE, June 25 (Reuters) - NATO leaders on June 25 backed the big increase in defense spending that President Donald Trump had demanded, and restated their commitment to defend each other from attack. While Trump got what he wanted at the brief summit, tailor-made for him, his NATO allies will be relieved that he committed to the fundamental principle of collective defense after less clear-cut language on June 24. In a five-point statement, NATO endorsed a higher defence spending goal of 5% of GDP by 2035 - a response not only to Trump but also to Europeans' fears that Russia poses a growing threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. More: Israel-Iran ceasefire seems to hold as Trump lands in Europe for NATO summit The 32 allies' brief communique added: "We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all." Asked to clarify his own stance on Article 5, Trump said: "I stand with it. That's why I'm here. If I didn't stand with it, I wouldn't be here." Macron brings up trade war at NATO summit Trump had long demanded in no uncertain terms that for other countries step up their spending on defense to reduce NATO's heavy reliance on the U.S. Despite an appearance of general agreement, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the issue of the steep import tariffs threatened by Trump, and the damage they may do to transatlantic trade, as a barrier to increased defense spending. More: Can Trump pull off peace plans, trade deals at the G7? What to know about the summit "You cannot come to us as allies and ask that we spend more, tell us we will spend more at NATO - and do a trade war. It's an aberration," he told reporters. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who hosted the summit in his home city of The Hague, said NATO would emerge as a 'stronger, fairer and more lethal' alliance. He had earlier acknowledged that it was not easy for European countries and Canada to find the extra money, but said it was vital to do so. "There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that, given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative," the former Dutch prime minister told reporters in his home city of The Hague. The new spending target - to be achieved over the next 10 years - is a jump worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the current goal of 2% of GDP, although it will be measured differently. Countries would spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence - such as troops and weapons - and 1.5% on broader defence-related measures such as cyber security, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle heavy military vehicles. All NATO members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal and can meet its commitments by spending much less. More: Trump says US strike impaired Iran's nukes. What does Pentagon say? Live updates Rutte disputes that but accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly. Spain said on June 25 that it did not expect its stance to have any repercussions. Trump meets Zelenskyy after summit Rutte kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge to try to avert any friction with Trump. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had to settle for attending the pre-summit June 24 dinner rather than the main meeting on June 25, although he met Trump separately after the conference ended. The Kremlin on June 24 accused NATO of being on a path of rampant militarization and portraying Russia as a "fiend of hell" in order to justify its big increase in defense spending.
New York Times
16 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mushy Wording Lets NATO Commit to Trump's Military Spending Demand
NATO leaders agreed on Wednesday to a goal of spending 5 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. But that doesn't mean each member nation will actually spend that much. The difference lies in a bit of mushy diplomatic language that lets the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, claim that he delivered on a spending demand issued by President Trump. The brief and unanimously approved communiqué that NATO issued after leaders wrapped up their annual summit says that 'allies' — not 'all allies' — had agreed to the 5 percent figure. Mr. Trump floated that target, up from the current 2 percent, early this year in a push to have Europe and Canada spend more on their militaries instead of relying on the United States for security. At the time, few believed it was realistic, given that nine of NATO's 32 member countries still had not reached the 2 percent spending pledge that was set in 2014. Several were balking at the 5 percent commitment as recently as Wednesday, emboldened by an assertion last weekend by Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of Spain that 'we're not going to do it.' Mr. Sanchez said Spain would spend 2.1 percent of its G.D.P. on defense, 'no more, no less,' because that was all his country needed to meet military capability targets set by NATO. Spain currently spends about 1.28 percent of G.D.P. on defense, according to the most recent official figures available. The language compromise, struck between Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Rutte last weekend, let both sides claim victory. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Associated Press
16 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed a victory to the Republican-controlled Legislature on Wednesday in a power struggle with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The court, in a unanimous ruling where the four liberal justices joined with three conservatives, struck down Evers' partial veto of a Republican bill in a case that tested both the limits of his broad veto powers and the Legislature's ability to exert influence by controlling funding. The court also ruled that the Legislature can put money for certain state programs into an emergency fund under the control of its budget committee. Evers had argued such a move was unconstitutional. The ruling against Evers comes after the court earlier this year upheld Evers' partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for 400 years. The court last year issued a ruling that reined in some powers of the Legislature's budget committee, while this ruling went the other way. Evers clashes with Legislature Evers, in his seventh year as governor, has frequently clashed with the Legislature and often used his broad veto powers to kill their proposals. Republican lawmakers have tried to take control away from the governor's office by placing money to fund certain programs and state agencies in an emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That gives the Legislature significant influence over that funding and the implementation of certain programs within the executive branch. Evers argued that the Legislature is trying to limit his partial veto power and illegally control how the executive branch spends money. The state Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed. It ruled that Evers improperly used his partial veto on a bill that detailed the plan for spending on new literacy programs designed to improve K-12 students' reading performance. The court also sided with the Legislature and said the budget committee can legally put money into an emergency fund to be distributed later. That is what it has done with the $50 million for the literacy program. Evers and Republican lawmakers did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Fight over literacy funding In 2023, Evers signed into law a bill that created an early literacy coaching program within the state Department of Public Instruction. The bill also created grants for schools that adopt approved reading curricula to pay for changing their programs and to train teachers on the new practices. However, Republicans put the $50 million to pay for the new initiative in a separate emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That money remains in limbo amid disagreements about how the money would be used and who would decide how to spend it. Evers argued that the Legislature didn't have the power to withhold the money and the court should order it to be released to the education department. The Legislature has been increasing the amount of money it puts in the emergency fund that it can release at its discretion, but it remains a small percentage of the total state budget. In the last budget, about $230 million was in the fund, or about half of a percentage point of the entire budget. Republicans sue to stop veto Evers used his partial veto power on another bill that created the mechanism for spending the $50 million for the new program. He argued that his changes would simplify the process and give DPI more flexibility. Evers also eliminated grants for private voucher and charter schools. Republican legislators sued, contending that the governor illegally used his partial veto power. State law allows only for a partial veto of bills that spend money. For all other bills, the governor must either sign or veto them in their entirety. Because the bill Evers partially vetoed was a framework for spending, but didn't actually allocate any money, his partial vetoes were unconstitutional, lawmakers argued. Evers argued for a liberal interpretation of his veto powers. He said that by challenging it, the Legislature was trying to weaken his powers. A Dane County judge sided with Evers, determining that the bill in question qualified as an appropriations bill subject to partial vetoes. But in a win for the Legislature, he did not find fault with the Legislature's budget committee putting funding for the program under its control. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that putting the money into the emergency fund was legal. But the court also said Evers' veto was illegal.
