Sen. Curtis wants changes to green energy credit cuts in Trump tax bill
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, hinted at changes to the Republican-led tax package, particularly on provisions repealing clean energy tax credits that were passed under the Biden administration.
In the budget resolution passed last week, which seeks to advance President Donald Trump's agenda on a slew of issues, Republicans approved language to repeal or phase out a number of green energy tax credits previously approved in the Inflation Reduction Act. Those provisions have divided Republicans as some have warned against repealing certain credits that boost energy production.
Curtis returned to Utah this week to expand on that message.
'It very clearly is a problem for the future, and I'll say not just of clean energy, but of energy' in general, Curtis told the Deseret News at a press conference in Erda, Tooele County, with Fluence, a clean energy company.
While the House-passed budget framework 'dramatically curtailed' many of those green energy tax credits, Curtis said there is a desire among some GOP lawmakers to preserve a handful of incentives in the final text.
'My friends in the House kind of called me up to say, 'Listen, we're counting on you to fix it,'' Curtis said. 'So I think even many of them knew that what they sent over did need some work, and that's now our job in the Senate to put our stamp on that and have it speak for our will.'
'And I think if I have anything to say about it,' he added, 'I'll make sure that we're taking into account our energy future.'
The budget proposal, coined as the 'Big Beautiful Bill Act,' would repeal many of the tax credits aimed toward incentivizing businesses to utilize clean energy to address the effects of climate change. That language was tucked into the larger framework by Republicans who lamented that the Inflation Reduction Act was drafted and passed solely by Democrats, demanding it be fully repealed to pave the way for their own party's agenda.
However, some Republicans have cautioned against a full repeal of Biden's signature climate bill, warning it could lead to 'significant disruptions' and weaken the United States on the global stage.
A group of GOP senators, including Curtis, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., last month to consider 'each existing tax credit' for its ability to spur domestic manufacturing, reduce utility costs, and ensure businesses receive 'meaningful U.S. investments' based on the current tax structure.
By doing that, they argued, beneficial credits can be protected while cutting costly programs that don't have substantial support.
Curtis said conversations are ongoing about how to address the clean energy credits, noting many of his GOP colleagues 'don't like it because we weren't included in it (and) we didn't get a chance to vote for it.'
But he argued the Inflation Reduction Act contains 'a lot of Utah/Republican/conservative principles … that we want to make sure that we make good decisions on.'
Those decisions, he argued, are crucial to Trump's desire to be energy dominant.
The Senate will begin consideration next week on the Big Beautiful Bill Act, Trump's budget framework advancing policies on border, energy, national defense and tax reform. Republican leaders hope to pass the megabill and have it signed by Trump before the Fourth of July.
However, if changes are made in the Senate, it will need to be passed by the House again — which could be easier said than done if any language is stripped out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift
Elon Musk has deleted a tweet in which he alleged that Donald Trump was 'in the Epstein files'. The social media post was written on Thursday during a fierce war of words between the tech billionaire and the US president, after a dispute over Mr Trump's flagship spending Bill marked an abrupt end to their close alliance. As the disagreement escalated, Mr Musk also suggested that his former boss should be removed from office. 'The Epstein files' is a phrase colloquially used to describe intelligence the US authorities hold on Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier who died in 2019. However, by Saturday morning, Mr Musk had deleted his post on X, in a sign the row could be winding down. Mr Trump also appeared to suggest he was moving on from the spat, telling reporters during a flight to New Jersey: 'Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. I just wish him well.' The row began when Mr Musk – who last week stepped down as head of the Department of Government Efficiency – criticised the president's upcoming Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' and claimed it would increase the national debt. Mr Trump retaliated by saying the billionaire was upset because one of his allies had not been chosen for a role in the new Nasa administration. The president also suggested Mr Musk was annoyed because the White House's 'big beautiful Bill' would end tax breaks for electric vehicles worth billions of dollars to his car company Tesla. 'He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Mr Trump said. The president later said, during an Oval Office meeting with Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, that Mr Musk had 'Trump derangement syndrome'. The Republican later added that he was 'very disappointed' in the entrepreneur. However, Mr Musk was quick to hit back, alleging that the president had only won last year's election because of his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election. Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate... Such ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The world's richest man then published his post about the president and the Epstein files – but provided no evidence to back up his claim. Mr Trump and Epstein ran in the same social circles in New York and were pictured partying together on various occasions in the 1980s and 1990s. Epstein killed himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In February, Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, pledged to release the Epstein files. However, the 'phase one' documents that were released to a hand-picked group of conservative influencers contained information that was largely already in the public domain. As the row escalated, Mr Musk said he would decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which is used by Nasa to deliver and collect astronauts from the International Space Station. Mr Trump in turn threatened to cancel all the Tesla and SpaceX owner's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts,' he said. The president also reportedly considered selling or giving away the red Tesla car he purchased earlier this year. Tesla shares tanked as the rift intensified, amid investor fears that Mr Trump might hinder the roll-out of self-driving cars in the US, hitting the company's growth potential. Shares closed down 14.3 per cent on Thursday and lost about £111 billion, although the firm staged a partial recovery on Friday. An administration official claimed Mr Musk was 'clearly having an episode', while Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's former adviser, encouraged the president to initiate a formal investigation into Mr Musk's immigration status and have him 'deported from the country immediately'. As well as deleting the Epstein post, Mr Musk also appeared to walk back on his threat to decommission the Dragon spacecraft. When an X user suggested Mr Musk and Mr Trump 'take a step back for a couple days', the Tesla chief executive wrote: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' However, the billionaire has continued to keep a poll pinned to the top of his X profile which invites users of the social media platform to vote on whether it is time for a new political party in the US. Mr Musk wrote on Friday night: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80 per cent in the middle! This is fate.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Drops A Cybersecurity Bombshell With Biden-Era Policy Reversal
Less than 24 hours after President Trump's public feud with Elon Musk, a new cybersecurity executive order was issued on June 6, 2025, introducing major revisions to the Biden administration's final cybersecurity directives. The order not only modifies key elements of Biden's January 2025 framework but also signals a broader realignment of federal cybersecurity priorities. It shifts focus away from federal digital identity initiatives and revises compliance-heavy software security mandates. Officially titled 'Sustaining Select Efforts To Strengthen The Nation's Cybersecurity And Amending Executive Order 13694 And Executive Order 14144,' the order represents a strategic departure from prior approaches, emphasizing operational pragmatism over regulatory expansion. Notably, it comes at a time when President Trump's nominee to lead the Cybersecurity And Infrastructure Security Agency, Sean Plankey, has yet to be confirmed due to opposition and delay tactics from both sides of the aisle. President Biden's Executive Order 14144 was issued on January 16, 2025, just four days before President Trump's inauguration. It was interpreted by many observers as an effort to define long-term cybersecurity direction before the change in administration. The order included measures to bolster software supply chain security, expand digital identity infrastructure and accelerate post-quantum cryptography adoption. However, this latest Trump order criticized several of these elements as overreaching or insufficiently vetted, characterizing them as 'problematic and distracting' and specifically noting that they were 'sneaked' into policy in the final hours of Biden's presidency. The language used in the accompanying fact sheet is unusually blunt for a federal document, suggesting a clear intent to publicly distance the new administration from its predecessor's policy posture. 1. Attribution Of Threats: Direct Language On Foreign Cyber Aggressors The executive order opens with unusually direct language, identifying the People's Republic of China as the most 'active and persistent' cyber threat to U.S. government systems, private sector networks and critical infrastructure. It also names Russia, Iran and North Korea as continuing sources of malicious cyber activity. This blunt attribution departs from the more generalized threat descriptions of previous administrations. By naming adversaries explicitly in the policy preamble, the administration signals a shift toward greater transparency in threat acknowledgment and a hardening of posture. The message is clear: U.S. cyber strategy is now being framed not only by evolving technologies but by intensifying geopolitical realities. 2. Software Security Compliance: Shifting From Mandated Attestations To Voluntary Implementation: Biden's order imposed a layered framework requiring federal contractors to submit attestations, artifacts and documentation tied to NIST's Secure Software Development Framework. Some would say that these requirements risked turning development teams into compliance teams. Trump's order eliminates attestations entirely. NIST will still provide guidance through the National Cybersecurity Center Of Excellence, but reporting is no longer mandatory. This reflects a shift toward flexibility over formality. 3. Digital Identity Verification: A Full Repeal Rooted In Fiscal And Legal Concerns: The Biden administration had envisioned digital credentials as a gateway to streamlined government services. Trump's order reverses course, citing concerns about entitlement fraud and improper access. The fact sheet explicitly warns that Biden's policy could have enabled unauthorized immigrants to obtain digital IDs. As a result, pilots on interoperability and identity federation are halted. 4. Artificial Intelligence In Cybersecurity: Tighter Focus On Defense And Vulnerability Management: Biden's order encouraged AI-driven collaboration across academia and industry. Trump's order takes a narrower view. It requires agencies to track vulnerabilities in AI systems, integrate them into incident response pipelines and limit data sharing to only what is feasible under security and confidentiality constraints. AI is repositioned as a potential liability to be secured, not a universal defense engine. 5. Post-Quantum Cryptography: A Deadline Remains But The Path Is Streamlined While both administrations agree on the risk posed by quantum computing, Trump's order simplifies the roadmap. By December 2025, CISA and NSA must publish a list of product categories ready for quantum-safe encryption. TLS 1.3 or its successor must be adopted by 2030. Oversight is split between NSA for national security systems and OMB for civilian agencies. 6. Cyber Sanctions Policy: A Narrowed Scope One of the more politically sensitive changes lies in how sanctions are applied. Biden's order allowed for cyber sanctions against any person involved in disinformation or cyber-enabled threats. Trump's revision limits this to foreign persons only. Domestic political activity is explicitly excluded, a move the administration describes as a safeguard against misuse of cyber enforcement tools. Initial industry feedback has been swift. The executive order's reorientation of cybersecurity priorities is already reverberating across the federal ecosystem, private sector and innovation community. From compliance-light procurement to a tighter national focus on AI risk, the changes are reshaping expectations. Defense integrators and established IT vendors are among the most immediate beneficiaries. By removing detailed compliance documentation, particularly attestations tied to secure software development, the order reduces friction in procurement and lowers operational risk. Contract cycles may accelerate as audit-readiness gives way to implementation focus. This shift rewards incumbents with mature delivery models and embedded federal relationships. With CISA's role redefined and federal oversight of digital identity rolled back, state and local governments may gain more autonomy to design cybersecurity programs that fit local contexts. For well-resourced jurisdictions, this could spur innovation. But for others, especially those lacking talent or funding, decentralization could create new coordination gaps. Additional federal guidance may be needed to prevent fragmentation in national critical infrastructure protection. For enterprises, the EO's elimination of standardized compliance frameworks is a mixed bag. Under the previous EO, the bar for secure software delivery was clear, particularly for organizations that invested in transparency and attestation. Without a common benchmark, proving trustworthiness becomes more subjective. Kevin Bocek, CyberArk's Senior Vice President of Innovation, emphasized that the industry is entering a new era of cybersecurity not only dominated by AI and automation, but also by emerging risks that are not yet widely addressed. 'It is affirming that the EO is serious about safe and secure AI, hopefully laying the foundation to critically address one of the most urgent and overlooked threats: machine identity sprawl,' Bocek noted. According to CyberArk, machine identities now outnumber human identities 82 to 1 within enterprises, yet 68% of organizations lack security controls to protect them. Without federal guidance and clear identity accountability, Bocek warns that this vulnerability could become a significant blind spot in national cybersecurity. His comments underscore the risk of prioritizing operational efficiency over foundational security controls, a concern shared by many CISOs facing exponential identity growth from cloud and AI platforms. Digital identity initiatives long supported by privacy advocates, civic technologists and digital modernization leaders were seen as critical to enabling secure, user-friendly access to government services. They aimed to streamline verification, reduce fraud and close equity gaps in federal access. The Biden administration had embraced digital IDs as the backbone of modern digital government. The Trump administration, however, rescinded these efforts. The accompanying fact sheet expressed concerns that digital identity mandates could be exploited to extend entitlements improperly, particularly to unauthorized immigrants. This decision reflects a broader skepticism toward centralized identity infrastructure and a desire to limit the federal government's role in managing citizen-level credentials. The Biden-era policy positioned artificial intelligence as a strategic asset for defense, encouraging public-private collaboration, dataset sharing and predictive threat detection at scale. The Trump administration's new directive narrows that scope significantly. Instead of promoting AI as a systemwide defense multiplier, the EO limits AI's use to managing system vulnerabilities and tracking indicators of compromise. This reflects concerns about over-reliance on technologies that are still evolving, opaque and in some cases unregulated. As Bocek noted, 'Proper AI development is a tool for predictive defense,' but without protections for the AI itself, it could become a new risk vector. The administration's position is clear: AI should be secured before it is scaled. This AI reframing also signals a philosophical divergence between leveraging AI as a force for innovation versus containing it as a potential liability. Whether that caution slows adoption or increases security maturity remains to be seen, but the message is unambiguous: the era of unchecked AI optimism in federal cybersecurity is over. This executive order is not a one-off. It is part of a broader realignment consistent with the principles laid out in Project 2025, a policy blueprint advocating for streamlined federal governance, stronger executive control, and targeted decentralization of agency authority. More orders are expected, particularly in areas such as offensive cyber capabilities, state-level infrastructure resilience, and the restructuring of agencies like CISA. Trump's June 2025 cybersecurity order is more than a policy shift. it is a recalibration of federal cyber strategy that prioritizes execution over oversight, industry collaboration over mandates, and sovereignty over standardization. For industry leaders, innovators, and government stakeholders alike, the takeaway is clear: cybersecurity is no longer just about compliance. It is about preparedness, adaptability, and national competitiveness in an AI-driven world. The next wave of policy will not be about fine-tuning compliance frameworks but will be about defending digital sovereignty. Those who can pivot fastest, and secure what matters most, will shape the next chapter of America's cyber future.
