Rep. Nick LaLota: The House reconciliation bill as is puts us on the right track
Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the fate of the GOP reconciliation bill, battle over the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), Medicaid reform, whether the bill can ultimately pass both chambers of Congress, and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump 'doesn't need permission' from Congress to strike Iran, expert says
Print Close By Alex Miller Published June 20, 2025 While lawmakers argue over their position in the command chain as President Donald Trump mulls a possible strike on Iran, one expert believes that the president is within his constitutional authority to move ahead with a bunker-busting bomb. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are embroiled in debate over where they are in the pecking order. Some argue they should have the sole authority to authorize a strike, let alone declare war, while others believe that is within Trump's purview if he wanted to join Israel's bombing campaign against Iran. 'INSTINCTS FOR RESTRAINT': SENATE DIVIDED OVER WHO GETS TO DECLARE WAR The predominant argument on the Hill is that the entire point of supporting Israel is to prevent the Islamic Republic from creating or acquiring a nuclear weapon. However, a legal scholar who helped to craft the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which authorized the usage of the U.S. armed forces to engage with the entities that then-President George W. Bush believed were behind the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack in New York City, argued that there was a difference between Congress' constitutional authority to declare war and the president's authority to use force abroad. "The position we took then, I think, is the same one that Trump should take now," John Yoo told Fox News Digital. "As a legal matter, the president doesn't need the permission of Congress to engage in hostilities abroad. But as a political matter, it's very important for the president to go to Congress and present the united front to our enemies." THUNE WARNS IRAN SHOULD RETURN TO NEGOTIATING TABLE 'IF THEY'RE SMART' The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander in chief directing the military. Nearly two centuries later, at the height of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was born, which sought to further define those roles. Yoo agreed that the Constitution was clear that Congress has the sole authority to declare war, which effectively changes the legal status of the country. However, he countered that "the framers did not think that language meant that the President and Congress are like the two weapons officers on a nuclear sub and have to turn the keys at the same time to use force." "The founders were very practical men, and they knew that Congress is slow to act, that Congress is a large body that deliberates, but it's the president who acts swiftly and decisively in defense of the nation," he said. Adding fuel to the debate in Washington are a pair of resolutions in the Senate from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and the House, from Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. The measures are designed to put a check on Trump's power and reaffirm Congress' constitutional authority. 'ANOTHER ENDLESS CONFLICT': DEMOCRAT ECHOES TRUMP'S ANTI-WAR STANCE AS MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS ESCALATE Yoo said that the resolutions appeared to be forms of "political opportunism" and noted that when former President Joe Biden wanted to send aid to Ukraine, when former President Barack Obama engaged abroad or when Trump authorized a drone strike to kill Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, there was no resolution demanding Congress have a say. "People on the Hill are conflating what's constitutionally necessary with what's politically expedient," Yoo said. "Two very different things." Congress' real power over war, he said, was the power of the purse, meaning lawmakers' ability to decide whether to fund the Pentagon and military in their appropriations process. Republicans are currently working to ram Trump's "big, beautiful bill" through Congress and onto his desk by Independence Day. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Included in the colossal bill is roughly $150 billion in funding for the Defense Department. "If Congress really doesn't want us to, doesn't want Trump to, get deeper involved in the Israel-Iran war," Yoo said. "All they got to do is not fund the military." "The ironic thing is, you have people who are voting to give extra tens of billions of dollars to the Defense Department, who are then turning around and complaining that they don't have the ability to vote on war," he said. "Every time they vote for funding, they're voting to make war possible." Print Close URL
37 minutes ago
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON -- A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don't agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions. Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved. 'The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,' wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. 'The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.' On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent. Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called 'Duffy Directive' put them in an impossible position. 'The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants' willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,' the attorneys general wrote in court documents. But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn't cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
JD Vance's Chances of Beating Donald Trump Jr. in 2028
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Vice President JD Vance is emerging as the early front-runner in the 2028 Republican presidential primary race, widening his lead over Donald Trump Jr., a new poll shows. According to the latest McLaughlin and Associates poll, conducted from June 10 to 15 among 1,000 voters, including 455 Republicans, Vance leads the crowded field with 36 percent support, more than doubling Trump's 14 percent. It marks a notable shift from earlier this year, when Vance had a much smaller lead over the president's son. Newsweek reached out to representatives for Donald Trump Jr. and JD Vance via email for comment. Why It Matters Neither Vance nor Trump has declared an intention to run on the 2028 Republican ticket, but both have hinted at running for president in the future. Speculation around both men as potential contenders is widespread, particularly in conservative media circles. What To Know In January, Vance polled at 27 percent while Trump held steady at 21 percent, according to McLaughlin. However, Vance surged in the following months, reaching a peak of 43 percent in April before settling back slightly. But the latest numbers suggest Vance's appeal is broadening. He leads among conservatives (43 percent), white voters (38 percent), Hispanic Republicans (28 percent), and voters over 55 (39 percent). He also outperforms Trump among both men (38 percent) and women (34 percent). However, while Trump still commands some loyalty—especially among self-identified Trump voters (39 percent) and moderates (16 percent)—his support has eroded since December, slipping from 21 percent to 14 percent. His performance is particularly weak among older voters (8 percent) and conservatives (12 percent), both essential in a GOP primary. L: Vice President JD Vance speaks at a gala in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2025. R: Donald Trump Jr. speaks at Trump Tower in New York City on June 16, 2025. L: Vice President JD Vance speaks at a gala in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2025. R: Donald Trump Jr. speaks at Trump Tower in New York City on June 16, 2025. AP Other contenders, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (6 percent), former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley (4 percent), and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy (2 percent), are languishing in the single digits. Haley shows strength with liberal Republicans (16 percent), but that bloc makes up a small portion of the party. In April, Vance hinted during a Fox & Friends appearance that he would consider running in 2028. "When we get to that point, I'll talk to the president. We'll figure out what we want to do. But the way that I think about it is, if we do a good job, the politics take care of themselves," Vance said. "There's so much to do and I don't really think that much about what happens in three and a half years," he added. A month later, Vance told NBC News, "If I do end up running in 2028, I'm not entitled to it." Trump has denied interest in running for office—at least publicly. In a March 2023 interview with The Times of London, the president's son said: "I'm not interested in politics...I'll leave that to others in the family." However, his persistent presence at conservative events such as the Conservative Political Action Conference and Turning Point USA has kept speculation alive. And in May, Trump appeared to change his tune. During the Qatar Economic Forum, he hinted that "maybe one day" he would run for president. "Here we go. boy," he said as members of the audience applauded, before adding: "It's an honor to be asked and an honor to see that some people are OK with it. "So the answer is: I don't know, maybe one day. You know, that calling is there. I'll always be very active in terms of being a vocal proponent of these things. I think my father has truly changed the Republican Party." What Happens Next It is not clear when presidential hopefuls will begin announcing their bids for 2028.
