logo
Navigating a possible Prop 187 moment

Navigating a possible Prop 187 moment

Politico4 hours ago

Presented by
IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID — For years, Mike Madrid has been moonlighting as the Cassandra of Latino voters, warning Democrats that the once-reliable voting bloc was slipping out of their grasp.
Now, after the 2024 election largely confirmed his thesis, Madrid, a Republican strategist who was a co-founder of the anti-Donald Trump Lincoln Project, says he wants to help politicians from both parties deliver what Latinos actually want. His newly launched initiative, 'Working Class Latino Project,' promotes focusing on economics — and veering away from the immigration-centric focus of many Latino politicians in the last few decades.
There's some irony in the timing of this debut, just as immigration has surged back into the spotlight. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids are now daily occurrences in Los Angeles, potentially galvanizing a whole new generation of Latinos a la those who were politically mobilized after the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in 1994.
Madrid acknowledged that backlash to Trump's immigration enforcement could cause some Latinos to return to the Democratic Party. But, he insists, the cost of living concerns that drove Latinos' rightward shift aren't going away.
'Even if this is a possible Prop 187 moment, shame on us if we are not simultaneously creating an economic agenda,' Madrid said. 'Because one of the lessons that needs to be learned by my generation is if you don't have an economic agenda, it can all go away with one election.'
Madrid commissioned a poll after the November election that found blaring warning signs for Democrats. More than three-quarters of respondents said that California state government policies made prices much higher or somewhat higher. Well over half of respondents disapproved of how the government was addressing the economy. But that doesn't automatically mean an upside for Republicans; respondents weren't convinced the GOP understood their needs.
To Madrid, the findings signaled a jump ball for both parties to make a better dollars-and-cents appeal to Latinos.
Plans for the initiative include polling, crafting policy development and hosting a series of economic summits across the state to identify key economic issues that Latinos want to see addressed. He plans to work with a bipartisan group of Latino legislators, as well as pollster Mindy Romero of USC.
The venture is backed by Business Roundtable, with funding from corporate interests such as energy companies and developers. The money source will almost certainly raise eyebrows from Democrats, especially progressives and allies of organized labor, who may see the project as a stalking horse for conservative policies.
Madrid says the project 'isn't going to be anti-labor at all,' and notes that he's willing to buck either party's orthodoxy. 'If tariffs harm the Latino middle class, which they do, I will be very vocal about that, along with other restrictive regulatory measures like CEQA [on] the left,' he said.
Assemblymember Juan Carrillo, a moderate Democrat from the Antelope Valley who is involved in the initiative, said some progressives may be skeptical of Madrid's message. But he said his party needs to be 'realistic' about the economic dissatisfaction of the state's largest plurality ethnic group.
'The worry that older Latinos will continue to go to the right, I think that we need to pay attention to what they're telling us,' said Carrillo. 'Those hardworking older Latinos like myself — I came here when I was 15 years old from Guadalajara. I came here and I worked hard, and that's all the Latinos are telling me that in my district, that we are not paying attention' to issues like economic opportunity and upward mobility.
Madrid has been working with Latino lawmakers from both parties to get the initiative off the ground — a touchy prospect given the partisan self-segregation in the Capitol between the longstanding Latino Legislative Caucus (composed only of Democrats) and the new Hispanic Legislative Caucus (for Republicans).
He had advised against forming an official bipartisan caucus, precisely because hot-button issues like immigration could be too toxic for such a group. And other issues — economic ones — aren't going anywhere.
'Regardless of what's happening in LA, with the ICE raids and with the real need for immigration reform, people are still struggling to put gas in their cars,' said state Sen. Suzette Valladares, an Antelope Valley Republican also involved in the project. 'These economic issues are not going to go away, but are going to compound for working-class Latinos.'
GOOD MORNING. Happy Thursday. Thanks for waking up with Playbook.
You can text us at ‪916-562-0685‬‪ — save it as 'CA Playbook' in your contacts. Or drop us a line at dgardiner@politico.com and bjones@politico.com, or on X — @DustinGardiner and @jonesblakej.
WHERE'S GAVIN? Nothing official announced.
STATE CAPITOL
BUDGET BRUISER — Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget negotiations with the Legislature are going down to the wire due to a clash over housing policy and labor protections. Newsom has made approval of the entire budget contingent on whether lawmakers approve a proposal to slash environmental reviews for many housing projects in urban areas.
As Lindsey Holden wrote for California Playbook PM, many rank-and-file Democrats and their powerful union allies are fuming over a new minimum wage requirement for residential construction workers. Debate at the Capitol on Wednesday devolved into should-be allies angrily comparing Newsom's plans to Jim Crow, slavery and immigration raids, our Eric He, Jeremy B. White and Rachel Bluth write.
Meanwhile, district attorneys and law enforcement groups say the budget deal between Newsom and legislative leaders is a 'slap in the face' because it doesn't set aside more funding to help counties fully implement tough-on-crime ballot measure Proposition 36, which Newsom opposed. Read more, also from Lindsey.
FANTASY FEUD — Major operators in the online fantasy sports-wagering arena are upping their Sacramento messaging blitz ahead of a highly anticipated opinion from state Attorney General Rob Bonta on whether the sites are legally operating in California.
Chatter about Bonta's forthcoming opinion has ramped up as industry insiders speculate where he will land on the legality of placing wagers on fantasy team lineups, an increasingly lucrative online industry. The decision could have national implications for fantasy sports, given the size of California's market and the legal gray area in which the sites often operate.
The speculation escalated Wednesday night, when KCRA reported that Bonta was 'expected to deem all online fantasy sports platforms illegal in the state,' citing multiple unnamed sources.
Fantasy sports platform operators argue that their sites shouldn't be considered traditional sports wagering because selecting players to create a fictional roster of athletes is a game of skill, not chance. But tribal communities — which spent tens of millions of dollars to defeat a 2022 measure to legalize sports gambling — are fighting the fantasy industry's growth. They want Bonta to declare it illegal in all forms.
Bonta began reviewing the legality of fantasy leagues in 2023, after receiving a request from a lawmaker, former state Sen. Scott Wilk, who warned fantasy betting was proliferating and is more akin to a game of chance.
SILICON VALLEY
MAHAN REBOUNDS — Progressive Democrats are having a very good week after Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won the Democratic Party's primary for New York City mayor.
But in the Bay Area, a different election Tuesday gave moderates cause to celebrate.
In San Jose's special election for a City Council seat, moderate Anthony Tordillos trounced his labor-backed opponent by double digits. The outcome was a major coup for Mayor Matt Mahan, who has long battled with labor unions that loathe his brand of anti-establishment, centrist Democratic politics.
Mahan endorsed Tordillos, chair of the Planning Commission, in the runoff against Gabby Chavez-Lopez, a progressive more closely aligned with unions.
The outcome ensures that Mahan's moderate-aligned bloc will hold the majority on the City Council. Mahan, in an interview with Playbook, said he and Tordillos both represent a current of Silicon Valley leaders willing to challenge the status quo within liberal circles.
'People want elected leaders who are focused on results, not partisan or ideological battles,' Mahan said.
Tordillos has backed some of Mahan's headline-grabbing policies, including his plan to tie city employees' pay raises to performance metrics. That said, he didn't support Mahan's much-debated plan to arrest homeless people who repeatedly refuse shelter.
Nevertheless, Tuesday's outcome is a comeback of sorts for Mahan. In the first round of the council contest, Mahan's preferred candidate, Matthew Quevedo (his deputy chief of staff), narrowly finished in third place. Union leaders were quick to frame the outcome as a referendum on the mayor.
But Mahan quickly moved to align himself with Tordillos in the runoff. Tordillos said the two, who share a background in tech, hit it off over their interest in using data to shape policy — as well as a sentiment that city government has been too dominated by ideology.
'Residents don't feel like the status quo is doing enough,' Tordillos said, citing the city's response to housing, homelessness and affordability problems.
INFLUENCE WATCH
OIL MONEY — Former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra received a $39,200 contribution from Chevron for his 2026 campaign for governor. It appears to be the oil company's first contribution to a candidate for governor since Jerry Brown in 2014, as Rob Pyers of Target Book observed.
Becerra's contribution is likely to raise eyebrows among climate hawks in the Democratic Party. But his Chevron money pales in comparison with fellow gubernatorial hopeful Antonio Villaraigosa's pivot toward the oil industry. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the former LA mayor has accepted at least $176,000 in contributions from people with ties to the industry.
CLIMATE AND ENERGY
THIS WAY OR THE HIGHWAY — The ongoing brawl between labor and environmental groups over highway expansion is back on with a new wrinkle. Read last night's California Climate on why affordability — and not pollution — will be front and center when the two sides face off Thursday over $600 million in funding for six projects.
TOP TALKERS
STAYING PUT — Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce President and Chief Executive Maria S. Salinas expressed concern in a Q&A with the LA Times for the city's small businesses amid the upheaval and ICE raids. Salinas said fears around recent enforcement actions in Los Angeles County — where immigrants account for 35 percent of the county's more than 10 million people — have caused both workers and consumers to stay home.
'When people are afraid to go out, they stay away from local stores and aren't going out to eat at their local restaurants. You see the emptiness in the local neighborhoods,' Salinas said.
IN A CORNER — Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, in a post on X, encouraged the state to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Education after the agency concluded that California violated Title IX by allowing transgender athletes to compete in school sports according to their gender identity. In the post, Kiley called on the state to reverse the policy, restore medals and apologize to female athletes before it loses funding.
Now, the state Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation have 10 days to change the policies or 'risk imminent enforcement action.' California officials said the state 'believes all students should have the opportunity to learn and play at school, and we have consistently applied existing law in support of students' rights to do so,' as NBC News reported.
AROUND THE STATE
— A new bill calls for creating a new regional agency for homelessness programming in Sacramento County and would effectively replace the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. (The Sacramento Bee)
— A federal judge ruled that Los Angeles officials failed to follow a settlement agreement that would create more shelter for homeless people. (LAist)
— Five former baseball players at the University of San Francisco filed a lawsuit claiming that the school failed to 'to adopt and enforce policies' prohibiting abuse allegedly by two ex-coaches. (San Francisco Chronicle)
PLAYBOOKERS
PEOPLE MOVES — Emily Cohen has been named CEO at United Contractors (UCON). She currently serves as UCON's executive VP and has been with the organization for over 15 years.
— Jason Rzepka is joining the firm RALLY as senior director, effective mid-July. Rzepka, a veteran strategic comms pro, was most recently president and founder of WRIT LARGE.
— Lisa M. Magorien has joined the law firm Seyfarth Shaw in Los Angeles (Century City), as a partner in its labor and employment practice. She was previously a partner at Lagasse Branch Bell & Kinkead, LLP.
BIRTHDAYS — David Bocarsly at the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California … Robert Gonzalez at Teamsters Local 1932 … Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech … Mark McGrath at Creative Artists Agency … Lynwood City Councilmember Juan Muñoz-Guevara (favorite treat: tres leches cake or a Paloma cocktail) … OpenAI's Elizabeth Wilner … Merit's Trevor Cornwell …
BELATED B-DAY WISHES — (was Wednesday): Dennis Cuevas-Romero at the California Primary Care Association … Hunter Bishop
WANT A SHOUT-OUT FEATURED? — Send us a birthday, career move or another special occasion to include in POLITICO's California Playbook. You can now submit a shout-out using this Google form.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Colleges face challenges as states attack tenure
Colleges face challenges as states attack tenure

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Colleges face challenges as states attack tenure

At least 11 states, including seven since the start of this year, have imposed new levels of review for tenured faculty, made it easier to fire them or proposed banning tenure altogether. Almost all have Republican-controlled legislatures or have seen lawmakers question what is being taught on campuses. This comes at the same time as, but has gotten less attention than, the Trump administration's higher education funding cuts and investigations into colleges and universities. Advertisement 'It's the flip side of the same assault,' said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, or AFT, which Unlike nontenured faculty, who can be dismissed or not reappointed, tenured faculty have more protections — including from being demoted or fired for what they think or say. Advertisement Without tenure, 'If you pursue the truth in ways that are uncomfortable for donors, for students, for trustees, for the state legislature, then you'll lose your job,' said Mark Criley, senior program officer for academic freedom, tenure and governance at the faculty union the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP. Even before the second Trump administration and this wave of tenure challenges, 45 percent of faculty members said they Most backers of curtailing tenure say they're not doing it for ideological reasons. They say they're trying to lower costs for taxpayers and consumers by removing faculty whose productivity is low. The goal is 'getting rid of professors who are not pulling their weight,' said Nebraska state Sen. Loren Lippincott, a Republican and sponsor of a proposal to He hears stories 'of professors that have tenure bragging about how little they work, how little they put in or how few hours they show up to teach classes,' Lippincott said at In other states, however, curbs on tenure have been linked directly or indirectly to faculty political views. Advertisement An Ohio bill passed in late March will Over the governor's veto, the Republican-dominated Kentucky General Assembly in March passed a bill Sponsors said the measure will uphold performance standards, but Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, contended in his veto message that it After faculty at the University of Texas at Austin signed A legislative proposal in Texas the following year failed to eliminate tenure, but broadened Advertisement In Indiana, a measure added to This follows a law passed last year in Indiana requiring reviews of tenured faculty and Arkansas legislators passed a law in March allowing university administrators to call for There have been earlier attempts Advertisement Tenure The move was largely a response to firings around that time of university and college faculty for teaching the theory of evolution, said Reuben, the Harvard historian. 'Faculty had to be able to have the freedom to ask questions, and they could not be tied down to any sort of intellectual test imposed by church dogma or political parties,' Reuben said. Momentum for removing this protection comes against a backdrop of falling trust in colleges and universities and of the people who work at them. Only about a third of Americans have 'a great deal' or 'a lot' of Only a little more than a third of Republicans believe university professors Advertisement 'This level of attack couldn't gain the kind of momentum it has without the declining public support for higher education,' Reuben said. 'It couldn't have happened to this magnitude before, because there was a general sense that higher education was good for society.' In Hawai'i, it was a fiscally conservative Democrat, state Sen. Donna Mercado Kim, who pushed, beginning in 2022, for tenure to be banned for University of Hawai'i faculty who do research and other jobs besides teaching, such as providing student support. Although she did not respond to repeated requests for comment, Kim has written that the effort was a way to make sure taxpayer and student tuition money given to the university After hundreds of faculty protested, she agreed to a compromise under which the university has set up a task force to study its tenure procedures. 'To me, it's about the Senate wanting control over the university,' said Christian Fern, executive director of the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, or UHPA, the faculty union. 'Being able to teach without political retribution — which rings really loudly right now — do you want to have a faculty member able to teach what they learned in their research, even if it's politically incorrect?' Fern asked. 'I think yes.' Karla Hayashi, president of the board of the UHPA and a former lecturer and English composition professor who now runs a tutoring center at the University of Hawai'i at Hilo, said she expects more attempts to weaken tenure. Hayashi sees them as an extension of political pressure that starts at the federal level. 'If I take away your tenure, then you're dependent on doing what I want you to do to earn your living,' she said. Contrary to arguments from critics, tenure 'is not a job for life,' Criley, of the AAUP, said. 'It's a guarantee that you'll only be dismissed for cause when a case can be made that you're not fit for your professional duties — that you're negligent, incompetent or guilty of some sort of misconduct that violates professional ethics.' Not all faculty agree that tenure is fine the way it is. 'If your main goal is job security, I don't think you're going to be that adventuresome of a professor,' said Jim Wetherbe, a professor in the business department at Texas Tech University and a longtime Academic freedom at public universities is already protected by the First Amendment, Wetherbe has argued. But Weingarten, the AFT head, said the immediate worry is that what faculty can say or teach will be narrowed. 'The right wing keeps talking about free speech, free speech, free speech, and an attack on tenure is an attack on free speech,' she said. 'It's basically an attempt to create compliance.' This story about was produced by , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our . Listen to our .

What new research tells us about how Trump won in 2024
What new research tells us about how Trump won in 2024

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

What new research tells us about how Trump won in 2024

President Donald Trump's 2024 victory over former Vice President Kamala Harris was fueled by 'a voter coalition that was more racially and ethnically diverse than in 2020 or 2016,' as well by an advantage among voters who didn't turn out for the previous election, according to a report released Thursday by the Pew Research Center. Pew's analysis, which combines survey data from its in-house panel of poll-takers with information from voter records, contributes to a more clearly emerging picture of the 2024 electorate. It finds that about three-quarters of eligible voters in the U.S. made the same decision in 2024 that they did in 2020, whether that was voting for the Republican or the Democrat, choosing a third-party candidate or sitting out the election altogether. But one-quarter made a different choice – enough to return Trump to the White House. Trump held onto 85% of his 2020 voters, the report finds, while Harris retained a smaller 79% of former President Joe Biden's supporters. Compared to 2020, Trump won a higher share of the vote among Hispanic voters (48%, up from 36%), Asian voters (40%, up from 30%) and Black voters (15%, up from 8%). 'These shifts were largely the result of differences in which voters turned out in the 2020 and 2024 elections,' the authors of the Pew report conclude. 'As in the past, a relatively small share of voters switched which party's candidate they supported.' Fifteen percent of 2020 Biden supporters and 11% of 2020 Trump supporters didn't vote four years later, their analysis finds. Trump also won about 5% of Biden's 2020 supporters, while Harris took about 3% of voters who supported Trump in the previous election. And while most eligible voters who didn't cast a vote in 2020 stayed home again last year, those who did decide to vote in 2024 broke for Trump over Harris, 54% to 42%. Adding in people who were too young to vote in the last election, the margin is slightly narrower. Pew's analysis is based on the results of a survey conducted just after November's presidential election. Like all surveys, its results offer an estimate of voter behavior rather than an attempt at pinpoint precision. That's why different post-election analyses may diverge in some findings about the electorate, even when they converge around a general consensus. The new analysis, like a report last month from the Democratic-aligned data firm Catalist, incorporates fresh sources of data: information from commercial voters files that aggregate official state turnout records. Pew's analysis matches that voter file data with responses to their survey – and because its polls are conducted using a panel of respondents who answer multiple surveys over time, researchers there can often track specific individuals' voting patterns. Catalist's report similarly found that voters who turn out irregularly played a key role in Trump's victory. Since non-presidential elections typically see lower turnout, that could also have potential implications as the parties begin gearing up for the upcoming midterms. 'There's definitely some evidence that this shift in Democrats doing better among more consistent voters may have some downstream impacts,' said Hannah Hartig, a senior researcher at Pew Research – although she noted that, with a long way still to go until the next election, it's too early to know how that may play out. A few more takeaways from the Pew report: Trump also improved his numbers among male voters, who split for Trump by a 12-point margin in 2024 after dividing closely between the candidates in 2020. There was especially sharp movement among male voters younger than 50 – while they were about evenly split last year, that marked a swing from a 10-point preference for Biden in 2020. Both Pew and Catalist show Democrats losing more ground among male voters than female voters, while exit polling and post-election data from Votecast found that erosion across gender lines. Education remains a major fault line in American politics. College graduates who voted in 2024 broke for Harris by a 16-point margin in Pew's data, while those without degrees broke for Trump by 14 points – although both those findings represent an improvement for Trump from his 2020 numbers. That education gap persisted among both White and Hispanic voters, while Black voters didn't divide significantly along educational lines. Catalist's report found similar educational trends, but charted somewhat less of a divide among Latino voters, while exit polling and VoteCast had showed college graduates' preferences remaining more stable. Naturalized citizens of the U.S. made up about 9% of last year's electorate, according to Pew. And in 2024, they were closely divided, with 51% backing Harris and 47% backing Trump. By contrast, in 2020, this group broke heavily for Biden. The design of Pew's study also allowed them to check in with nonvoters: adults who were eligible to vote, but weren't a part of the 64% who actually turned out. In the past, this group typically leaned Democratic: asked whom they would have preferred if they had voted, 2020 nonvoters favored Biden over Trump by an 11-point margin. But in 2024, nonvoters were closely split, with 44% preferring Trump and 40% Harris. 'If somehow something magic had happened and everybody who's eligible to vote had actually showed up, not only would it not have helped the Democrats and Harris, it might have actually pushed Trump's margin up slightly,' said Scott Keeter, a senior survey advisor at Pew. The Pew Research Center surveyed 8,942 US adults in November 2024, using the nationally representative American Trends Panel, including 7,100 voters who were able to be matched against a voter file. Results among the full sample of validated voters have a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points. More details on the survey methodology are available here.

Key Medicaid provision in Trump's tax cut and spending bill is found to violate Senate rules
Key Medicaid provision in Trump's tax cut and spending bill is found to violate Senate rules

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Key Medicaid provision in Trump's tax cut and spending bill is found to violate Senate rules

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate parliamentarian has advised that a Medicaid provider tax overhaul central to President Donald Trump's tax cut and spending bill does not adhere to the chamber's procedural rules, delivering a crucial blow as Republicans rush to finish the package this week. Guidance from the parliamentarian is rarely ignored and Republican leaders are now forced to consider difficult options. Republicans were counting on big cuts to Medicaid and other programs to offset trillions of dollars in Trump tax breaks, their top priority. Earlier, the Senate's chief arbiter of its often complicated rules had advised against some GOP provisions barring certain immigrants from health care programs. Republicans scrambled to respond, with some calling for challenging, or firing, the nonpartisan parliamentarian, who has been on the job since 2012. Democrats said the decisions would devastate GOP plans. Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the Republican proposals would have meant $250 billion less for the health care program, 'massive Medicaid cuts that hurt kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities and working families.' The outcome is a setback as Senate Republicans hoped to get votes underway by week's end to meet Trump's Fourth of July deadline for passage. Trump is expected to host an event later Thursday at the White House with Americans the administration says would benefit from the bill as he hopes to energize Congress to wrap up its work on the bill. GOP leaders were already struggling to rally support for Medicaid changes that some senators said went too far and would have left millions without coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said more than 10.9 million more people would not have health care under the House-passed bill; Senate Republicans were proposing deeper cuts.. Republican leaders are relying on the Medicaid provider tax change along with other health care restrictions to save billions of dollars and offset the cost of trillions of dollars in tax cuts. Those tax breaks from Trump's first term would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, meaning a tax increase for Americans. Several GOP senators said cutting the Medicaid provider tax change in particular would hurt rural hospitals that depend on the money. Hospital organizations have warned that it could lead to hospital closures. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., among those fighting the change, said he had spoken to Trump late Wednesday and that the president told him to revert back to an earlier proposal from the House. States impose the taxes as a way to help fund Medicaid, largely by boosting the reimbursements they receive from the federal government. Critics say the system is a type of 'laundering,' but almost every state except Alaska uses it to help provide the health care coverage. More than 80 millions people in the United States use the Medicaid program, alongside the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Republicans want to scale Medicaid back to what they say is its original mission, providing care mainly to women and children, rather than a much larger group of people. The House-passed bill would freeze the provider taxes at current levels. The Senate proposal goes deeper by reducing the tax that some states are able to impose. Senate GOP leaders can strip or revise the provisions that are in violation of the chamber's rules. But if they move ahead, those measures could be challenged in a floor vote, requiring a 60-vote threshold to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate divided 53-47 and with Democrats unified against Trump's bill. One plan Republicans had been considering would have created a rural hospital fund with $15 billion to help defray any lost revenue to the hospitals and providers. Some GOP senators said that was too much; others, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, wanted at least $100 billion. The parliamentarian has worked around the clock since late last week to assess the legislation before votes that were expected as soon as Friday. Overnight Wednesday and Thursday, the parliamentarian advised against several provisions that would have blocked access for immigrants who are not citizens to Medicaid, Medicare and other health care programs, including one that would have cut money to states that allow some migrants into Medicaid. Earlier, proposals to cut food stamps were ruled in violation of Senate rules, as was a plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. ___ Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

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