GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill.
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program.
Advertisement
'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said.
The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and 'to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.'
Advertisement
What's at stake in the big bill
The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate.
At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide.
Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny.
All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would
The Senate's strict 'Byrd Rule'
The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used.
Advertisement
Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule.
Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people.
Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available.
More questions and decisions ahead
The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package.
The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas.
Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits.
Advertisement
Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule.
The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds.
The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors see risks for market as Powell walks tightrope at Jackson Hole
By Davide Barbuscia NEW YORK (Reuters) -Investors are bracing for volatility as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell walks a fine line between curbing inflation and supporting the labor market, with thin August trading poised to magnify any market moves from his Jackson Hole speech on Friday. Wall Street largely expects Powell will signal an imminent easing in monetary policy, but concerns that U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs could reignite price pressures may force him to tread carefully. Meanwhile, Powell faces relentless pressure from the Trump administration to cut interest rates, turning his final address as Fed boss at the Jackson Hole economic symposium into a test of Fed independence. "There is a market tightrope here from a macroeconomic perspective between the inflation data and what's happening in the employment market," said Tony Rodriguez, head of fixed income strategy at Nuveen. "And now you combine that with the political tightrope that's not usually there that he has to navigate. It makes for an incredibly difficult, tricky situation," he said. Adding to the drama, Trump on Wednesday urged Fed Governor Lisa Cook to resign over mortgage allegations raised by one of his political allies, intensifying his effort to gain influence over the U.S. central bank. Cook said she had "no intention of being bullied" out of her post. "This (Jackson Hole) would be a good opportunity for Powell to speak about the importance of independence," said Idanna Appio, portfolio manager at First Eagle Investments, noting that the pressure could eventually lead to a more dovish rate-setting Fed board. A soft July jobs report and hefty downward revisions to earlier job figures fueled bets the U.S. central bank would cut interest rates from the current 4.25%-4.5% range later this year. But a surge in wholesale prices in July dimmed investor hopes for a half-point move at the Fed's next rate-setting meeting in September, leaving markets braced for about two 25 basis point cuts for the rest of the year. So far, consumers have been spared a sharp jump in prices despite Trump's escalating import tariffs, but doubts linger over how much of those duties will filter through to households in the months ahead. "I expect that Powell will signal a change in monetary policy that suggests that we'll resume the rate-cutting cycle on September 17, and markets will welcome that news," said Michael Arone, chief investment strategist at State Street Investment Management. "But I think he'll be reluctant to give too much transparency on the future path of rate cuts, because he knows what he doesn't know," Arone said, referring to the inflationary impact of tariffs. 'EXPECT VOLATILITY' Investors see any pushback from Powell against an imminent shift to monetary policy easing as the biggest risk heading into the Jackson Hole, Wyoming, event, with poor liquidity in summer trading expected to exacerbate the market reaction. "It's next to the last week of August, it's Friday, markets might be a little more susceptible to some volatility as a result of a little bit less liquidity ... (this) might lead to something of an unexpected move," said Rodriguez at Nuveen. Powell's speech comes amid market concerns of stagflation, a dreaded mix of sluggish growth and sticky inflation that could limit the Fed's ability to ride to Wall Street's rescue, just as a tech stock selloff this week highlighted long-standing worries over steep stock valuations. "Stagflation is a risk," said James Ragan, co-chief investment officer and director of investment management research at D.A. Davidson. "If Powell pulls back on the expectation for a rate cut in September, I think stocks would fall in that scenario and you obviously would see probably bond yields rise at least at the short end," he said. To be sure, Powell's address may ultimately be underwhelming for markets. Hot producer prices data in July removed the possibility that the Fed could deliver a jumbo-sized cut in September, limiting the scope for resistance from an inflation-focused Powell against those expectations. At the Jackson Hole conference in 2022, Powell echoed late Fed chair Paul Volcker with a hardline vow to crush inflation. This time, with inflation about 1 percentage point above the Fed's 2% target and a softening but still healthy job market, a subtler balance could be in the cards. Still, a balanced message could be perceived as hawkish, sparking price fluctuations in stocks and bonds over the next few weeks, said Shannon Saccocia, chief investment officer for wealth management at Neuberger Berman. "Our advice to clients has been to expect volatility," she said.
American Press
26 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Uganda agrees to take deported migrants from U.S. if they don't have criminal records
KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda has agreed to a deal with the United States to take deported migrants as long as they don't have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors, the foreign ministry said Thursday. The ministry said in a statement that the agreement had been concluded but that terms were still being worked out. It added that Uganda prefers that the migrants sent there be of African nationalities, but did not elaborate on what Uganda might get in return for accepting deportees. The U.S. Embassy in Uganda declined to comment on what it called 'diplomatic negotiations,' but said that diplomats were seeking to uphold President Trump's 'policy of keeping Americans safe.' The Trump administration has been seeking ways to deter migrants from entering the country illegally and to deport those who already have done so, especially those with criminal records and including those who cannot easily be deported to their home country. Human rights activists criticized the deportee deal as possibly going against international law. Henry Okello Oryem, Uganda's state minister for foreign affairs, on Wednesday had denied that any agreement on deportees had been reached, though he said his government was in discussions about 'visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues.' He also suggested that his country would draw the line at accepting people associated with criminal groups. 'We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?' he said at the time. Oryem and other Ugandan government officials declined to comment Thursday. Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi suggested that such a deal with the United States would give the Ugandan government legitimacy ahead of elections, and urged Washington not to turn a blind eye toward what he described as human rights and governance issues in Uganda. Uganda's leaders will rush into a deal to 'clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,' Nkunyingi said. Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opio likened a deportee deal to human trafficking, and said it would leave the status of the deportees unclear. 'Are they refugees or prisoners?' he said. 'The proposed deal runs afoul of international law. We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,' he said. 'That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?' In July, the U.S. deported five men with criminal backgrounds to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini and sent eight more to South Sudan. The men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to Eswatini are being held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. A legal challenge in the U.S had halted the deportation process of the eight men in South Sudan but a Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Uganda has had challenges with the U.S. after lawmakers passed an anti-homosexuality bill in 2023 that punishes consensual same-sex conduct with penalties including life imprisonment. Washington threatened consequences and the World Bank withheld some funding. In May 2024, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Uganda's parliamentary speaker, her husband and several other officials over corruption and serious abuses of human rights.
