Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina won't run in 2026 after opposing Trump's bill
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said Sunday he will not seek reelection next year, a day after announcing his opposition to U.S. President Donald Trump's tax breaks and spending cuts package because of its reductions to health care programs.
His decision will create a political opportunity for Democrats seeking to bolster their numbers in the 2026 midterm elections, opening a seat in a state that has long been a contested battleground. Republicans hold a 53-47 edge in the Senate.
Tillis, who would have been up for a third term, said he was proud of his career in public service but acknowledged the difficult political environment for those who buck their party and go it alone.
'In Washington over the last few years, it's become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,' he said in a lengthy statement.
'Sometimes those bipartisan initiatives got me into trouble with my own party, but I wouldn't have changed a single one.'
Trump, in social posts, had berated Tillis for being one of two Republican senators who voted on Saturday night against advancing the massive bill.
The Republican president accused Tillis of seeking publicity with his 'no' vote and threatened to campaign against him. The Republican president also accused Tillis off doing nothing to help his constituents after last year's devastating floods.
'Tillis is a talker and complainer, NOT A DOER,' Trump wrote.
Tillis rose to prominence in North Carolina when, as a second-term state House member, he quit his IBM consultant job and led the GOP's recruitment and fundraising efforts in the chamber for the 2010 elections. Republicans won majorities in the House and Senate for the first time in 140 years.
Tillis was later elected as state House speaker and helped enact conservative policies on taxes, gun rights, regulations and abortion while serving in the role for four years. He also helped push a state constitutional referendum to ban gay marriage, which was approved by voters in 2012 but was ultimately struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.
In 2014, Tillis helped flip control of the U.S. Senate to the GOP after narrowly defeating Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan.
Ali Swenson, The Associated Press
Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti in Washington and Makiya Seminera in Raleigh, North Carolina, contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
38 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes birthright citizenship
An explosive constitutional battle broke out over the weekend in the U.S., as the country assessed the impact of a Supreme Court decision that jeopardized the notion of 'birthright citizenship' and inflamed all the passions of the Donald Trump era. The high court ruled Friday that lower courts could not 'stay,' or delay, the implementation of executive orders or laws. The decision has immediate implications beyond ending nationwide injunctions, which has been used against executive-branch policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations but came into full flower in the Joe Biden and Trump years. The lower courts had questioned the constitutionality of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship policy, announced the day he returned to the White House on Jan. 20. So the Supreme Court's decision opened the way, if only temporarily, to permit the administration to deny American citizenship to some people born in the U.S. It's an initiative by the Trump administration that has roiled American politics and has the potential of altering the composition of the country's population. Until Friday's ruling, it was a common assumption that the 14th Amendment's provision granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. was beyond debate. But, as it has done in a full gamut of areas, the Trump administration has taken what was a settled matter and, in the process, unsettled American politics. Trump administration ends legal protections for half-million Haitians who now face deportations The Supreme Court's decision spurred fresh determination from the Trump camp to expand its drive against migrants, prompted indignant howls of protest from migrant-rights activists. It triggered yet another national debate on the Constitution, the prerogatives of the executive branch, and the policies of the President. The Trump offensive against all the assumptions of American civic life took special aim at the very first sentence of the post-Civil War amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and confirmed by the states two years later: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' For 157 years, the interpretation of that language was largely immune to challenge, even though the context was the granting of citizenship to the enslaved persons who had been freed in the aftermath of the Civil War. The meaning was clear: Those born in the U.S. were, by definition, Americans. Even an earlier Supreme Court, in 1898, affirmed that notion, and for more than a century and a quarter, it seemed unassailable. But the new focus on immigration, and what the Trump administration considered the promiscuous conferring of American citizenship on the children of those residing in the country illegally, transformed a given to a right that the President and anti-immigrant activists wanted to take away. Many legal scholars doubt the Trump tactic, and argue that what the words say is what the amendment means. But the Trump administration argues that the context of the 14th amendment – part of a flurry of changes in American life after the Civil War that tore the country apart geographically, culturally, economically, and morally – means that the language reflected a specific moment in time and a specific circumstance. They argue that the 19th-century amendment doesn't apply to far different 21st-century circumstances. The irony is that many of those who support that position also embrace a 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution, urging in other cases that the words of the founding American document (which includes the 25 amendments that followed) are to be taken literally, shorn of context or interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision actually said nothing about birthright citizenship. It merely argued that, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett put it, excesses by the executive branch can't be stanched by excesses of the judicial branch. That means that lower-court judges skeptical of, or opposed to, Trump policies cannot invalidate those initiatives. The fact that the court test involved the Trump birthright citizenship case opened the administration to pursue its original intention, the denial of citizenship to some children of migrants and to make them vulnerable to deportation. This was an especially important target to the administration because of its view that large numbers of migrants were having children in the U.S., or coming to the country, for the express purpose of rendering their children American citizens. A May study by the Migration Policy Institute at Penn State University found that, if Mr. Trump prevailed, about 255,000 children born on U.S. soil each year would be denied American citizenship. The Supreme Court likely will rule on birthright citizenship in its next term, which begins in October, though it is possible some of the suits already filed may prompt it to make a swifter ruling. Opinion: The missing pieces migrants leave behind The Trump administration must wait about a month before taking action in the 28 states that haven't challenged the President's order. Opponents of the policy didn't wait to take legal action. The court challenges came first from New Hampshire and New Jersey, but other states likely will follow, taking advantage of the fact the Supreme Court's decision offered another opening for action. It's an analogue to the opening granted to the Trump administration. The Supreme Court ruled that class-action suits could be filed in federal district courts that might, in specific geographical areas, bar enforcement of the Trump order. This issue has been confined thus far to the executive and judicial branches. But shortly after the Trump executive order, legislation was filed on Capitol Hill that would grant citizenship only to children born to a parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, to a lawful permanent resident living in the country, or to a non-American legally admitted to the country performing active service in the armed services. No congressional action has been taken.
The Province
42 minutes ago
- The Province
What is Canada's digital services tax and why is it infuriating Trump?
Trump abruptly cut off all trade negotiations with Canada, citing Ottawa's DST for the decision U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington on June 27. Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly cut off all trade negotiations with Canada on Friday, citing Ottawa's Digital Services Tax (DST) for the decision. The tax, enacted last June, targets U.S. technology companies that operate in Canada but pay little tax here. Under the new tax regime, the first payments are set to be collected on Monday, June 30. The Financial Post breaks down what you need to know about the DST and why it is infuriating Trump and Americans. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government enacted Canada's Digital Services Tax Act in June 2024, with the rules coming into effect the same month. The federal tax is applicable to large businesses — both foreign and domestic — that meet two specific criteria: a total global revenue of €750 million and up, and over $20 million of profits earned in Canada annually. The legislation levies a three per cent tax on digital services revenue over $20 million, and is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2022, meaning Ottawa could stand to gain billions in DST revenue, according to some estimates. Taxable revenue includes those of online marketplaces, digital advertising, social media, and user data — which will primarily affect American Big Tech giants such as Inc., Apple Inc., and Meta Platforms, Inc. Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Under the DST, companies were required to register with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) by Jan. 31, 2025 and are obligated to file their first DST returns on June 30, 2025. The CRA has said that more than 500 companies have already applied to register for DST purposes, and expects more than 100 companies to pay the tax. If applicable companies fail to register with the agency, they could be fined $20,000 per year. If they fail to file a DST return, Canada could dole out a penalty equal to five per cent of the unpaid tax for the year, plus one per cent of the unpaid tax for the year for each month, not exceeding 12 months, in which the return hasn't been filed. Why is it controversial? According to the government, the goal of the DST is to ensure that major technology firms are taxed appropriately in the country. The legislation however, has come under fire from business groups on both sides of the border, with critics warning that the rules could further inflame Canada-U.S. ties. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has argued that the tax could increase costs for consumers and risks 'damaging our beneficial and lucrative trade relationship with the U.S.' The U.S. meanwhile, has long denounced Canada's proposed rules, claiming that they unfairly discriminate against American firms. Last August, under the former Biden administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) launched dispute settlement consultations with Ottawa under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement over the DST. The U.S. has said that American companies are on the hook to pay Ottawa US$2 billion under the DST. 'Only America should be allowed to tax American firms,' Trump said in a February statement. Tech giant Google LLC responded to Canada's digital services tax rules by introducing an additional 2.5 per cent fee for ads shown in Canada starting in October 2024. Called the 'Canada DST Fee,' Google said the surcharges will 'cover part of the costs of complying with DST legislation in Canada.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Other countries have enacted their own digital service taxes. Around half of all European OECD countries have announced, proposed, or implemented a DST, according to the Tax Foundation Europe. The U.S. has met those proposals with threats of retaliatory tariffs. Some countries' DST regimes could be on the chopping block. France's Council of State, which advises the government on the preparation of bills and other matters, recently referred the country's DST to the Constitutional Council for review, marking the first constitutional challenge to the DST since the legislation passed in 2019. Will Canada maintain it? For months, executives of U.S. tech giants have pressured American policymakers over Canada's DST. Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Canadian business groups have also pressed the Carney government to abandon the DST. And while businesses and industry groups were holding out for a last-minute suspension of the DST, finance minister François-Philippe Champagne reconfirmed last Thursday that Canada is 'going ahead' with the tax. 'The (DST) is in force and it's going to be applied,' he said. Parliament Hill's firm stance on maintaining the DST comes despite a recent Group of Seven (G7) agreement that succeeded in axing the Section 899 'revenge tax' provision from Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' that would have taken aim at businesses from countries that the U.S. views as unjustly targeting American firms. Ottawa hasn't ruled out shutting down DST discussions completely. 'Obviously, all of that is something that we're considering as part of broader discussions that you may have,' Champagne said last week, suggesting that the DST could be renegotiated given the ongoing trade talks between Canada and the U.S. Read More • Email: ylau@
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
NYC, San Francisco and other US cities cap LGBTQ+ Pride month with a mix of party and protest
NEW YORK (AP) — The monthlong celebration of LGBTQ+ Pride reached its rainbow-laden crescendo Sunday as huge crowds took part in jubilant, daylong street parties from New York to San Francisco. Pride celebrations typically weave politics and protest together with colorful pageantry, but this year's iterations took a decidedly more defiant stance as Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, have sought to roll back LGBTQ+ friendly policies.
