G.O.P. Bill Adds Surprise Tax That Could Cripple Wind and Solar Power
Senate Republicans have quietly inserted provisions in President Trump's domestic policy bill that would not only end federal support for wind and solar energy but would impose an entirely new tax on future projects, a move that industry groups say could devastate the renewable power industry.
The tax provision, tucked inside the 940-page bill that the Senate made public just after midnight on Friday, stunned observers.
'This is how you kill an industry,' said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan group of business leaders and investors. 'And at a time when electricity prices and demand are soaring.'
The bill would rapidly phase out existing federal tax subsidies for wind and solar power by 2027. Doing so, many companies say, could derail hundreds of projects under development and could jeopardize billions of dollars in manufacturing facilities that had been planned around the country with the subsidies in mind.
Those tax credits were at the heart of the Inflation Reduction Act, which Democrats passed in 2022 in an attempt to nudge the country away from fossil fuels, the burning of which is driving climate change. President Trump, who has mocked climate science, has instead promoted fossil fuels and demanded that Republicans in Congress unwind the law.
But the latest version of the Senate bill would go much further. It would impose a steep penalty on all new wind and solar farms that come online after 2027 — even if they didn't receive federal subsidies — unless they follow complicated and potentially unworkable requirements to disentangle their supply chains from China. Since China dominates global supply chains, that measure could affect a large number of companies.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
13 minutes ago
- USA Today
Thom Tillis, key Republican holdout on Trump's tax bill, won't seek reelection
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a key holdout on President Donald Trump's sweeping legislation on taxes, Medicaid, border resources and more, will not seek reelection. Tillis, first elected to the Senate in 2014, said it was "not a hard choice" and that leaders who want bipartisan solutions have become an "endangered species" in Washington. "As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home." "It's not a hard choice and I will not be seeking re-election," he said in the statement. Tillis hinted that he may break from Republicans and Trump again in the coming year and a half. "I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit," he said in the statement. The Republican's seat in battleground North Carolina was already a top target for Senate Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. He faced a potentially brutal fight to keep the seat as the left pushed to reclaim control of the chamber. After Tillis voted against advancing the GOP's massive domestic policy bill June 28, Trump threatened to embrace potential primary challengers in a series of social media posts. 'Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!' Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social. Tillis said June 28 that he could not support the bill because of it's expected impacts on Medicaid and rural hospitals. 'I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities,' Tillis' statement read. 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,' he added The House approved significant changes to Medicaid that were expected to save at least $625 billion − potentially causing 7.6 million Americans over the next decade to lose health insurance. The Senate sought even deeper cuts, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the push early June 30.
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appeals court to consider Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act
On Monday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans will consider those questions, as well, in what is likely to be the decisive legal battle over Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The hearing, before the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, will almost certainly reprise legal arguments that the Trump administration and lawyers for the Venezuelan men have made repeatedly in lower courts. But the 5th Circuit's case is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court, where it will get a full hearing on the substantive question of whether Trump has used the act unlawfully. Advertisement Passed in 1798 as the nascent United States was threatened by war with France, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president expansive powers to detain and expel members of a hostile foreign nation. But the act grants those powers only in times of declared war or during what it describes as an invasion or a 'predatory incursion.' Advertisement From the start, the administration has sought to use the law in an unusual way, turning it against scores of Venezuelan men accused of belonging to the street gang Tren de Aragua, which Trump has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The president and his aides have repeatedly maintained that the men were not mere criminals but were working hand in glove with the Venezuelan government. Moreover, they have argued that their presence on US soil was tantamount to an invasion by a hostile foreign country. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been representing the men, has scoffed at those claims in case after case, saying that they have no connection to reality. Lawyers for the ACLU have pointed out that mass migration, regardless of its scale, is not the same as an invasion. They have also argued that there is no conclusive evidence that their clients, many of whom have no criminal record, are working for anyone, let alone for the Venezuelan government. So far, a majority of federal courts have agreed with the ACLU, deciding that Trump invoked the act unlawfully and that his vision of the Venezuelans posing a military threat to the United States did not line up with the facts. Two courts, however, have sided with the administration, essentially arguing that the White House should be granted wide latitude in conducting foreign affairs, especially when they concern a gang that has been deemed a terrorist organization. The ACLU could face an uphill battle in its effort to win over the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. But no matter who prevails in the oral arguments set for Monday, the case is likely to move on to the Supreme Court. Advertisement The case took an unusual path in reaching the 5th Circuit. In mid-April, the ACLU filed an emergency lawsuit in US District Court in Abilene, Texas, after suddenly getting news that the Trump administration was preparing to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport a group of Venezuelans being held at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in nearby Anson. The move to expel the men, the ACLU maintained, appeared to be an opportunistic effort to bypass orders barring similar removals from courts in New York, Colorado, and another part of Texas, which covered only those local jurisdictions. After the district court judge in Abilene failed to act quickly, the ACLU filed a flurry of follow-up petitions, asking the 5th Circuit and then the Supreme Court to help the men at Bluebonnet. The lawyers argued that the men were in imminent danger of being shipped off to El Salvador, where an earlier group of Venezuelan immigrants were sent in March and remain today. In an unusual ruling issued well after midnight, the Supreme Court ultimately put the deportations from Bluebonnet temporarily on hold. The justices declined to weigh in on the larger question of whether Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful, saying only that the government had skirted due process by failing to give the Venezuelan men enough time and opportunity to contest their removal. Last month, the Supreme Court issued another decision in the case, maintaining the freeze on the deportations and sending the matter back to the 5th Circuit, with marching orders on how to proceed in the upcoming hearing. Advertisement The appellate judges were instructed to consider two issues: the substantive question of whether Trump's use of the act was legal in the first place and a narrower one about how much — and what sort — of warning immigrants should be given before being expelled under the law. This article originally appeared in
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
We Shouldn't Have Billionaires, Mamdani Says
Zohran Mamdani, who campaigned for mayor on the theme of making New York City more affordable, said in a major national television interview that during a time of rising inequality, 'I don't think we should have billionaires.' Mr. Mamdani, the likely winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, said in an appearance on 'Meet the Press' on Sunday that more equality is needed across the city, state and country, and that he looked forward to working 'with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fairer for all of them.' At the same time, Mr. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, asserted that he is not a communist, a response to an attack from President Trump. 'I have already had to start to get used to the fact that the president will talk about how I look, how I sound, where I'm from, who I am — ultimately because he wants to distract from what I'm fighting for,' Mr. Mamdani said. But one question he continued to sidestep was whether he would denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' after he declined to condemn it during a podcast interview before the primary. The slogan is a rallying cry for liberation among Palestinians and their supporters, but many Jews consider it a call to violence invoking resistance movements of the 1980s and 2000s. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
