Rep. Thomas Massie launched a long-shot attempt to force a vote on releasing Epstein files
Congress needs to approve the request before it expires Friday, or the administration will have to spend the money as lawmakers originally intended. That deadline is looming large as several GOP senators insist the administration clarify what spending it is actually seeking to rescind. They'll question President Donald Trump's budget director Russ Vought during senators' closed-door lunch Tuesday afternoon.
'We still are lacking the level of detail that is needed to make the right decisions,' Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins told reporters Monday evening. 'It's extremely unusual for any senator to not be able to get that kind of detailed information.'
The Maine Republican is concerned not just over the administration's proposal to scale down the global AIDS-fighting program PEPFAR, but also about broader cutbacks in overseas public health. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told POLITICO he's particularly interested in protecting funding for global food aid programs like Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
It's increasingly evident the rescissions package will have to be changed in order to pass the Senate, and Thune told reporters as he left the Capitol on Monday that leadership is working with wary senators to 'see what a path forward on amendments looks like.'
Senate leaders expect a vote-a-rama on amendments to start Wednesday, teeing up a final vote late Wednesday or early Thursday. If senators are able to advance a package with tweaks, House GOP leaders plan to put the package on the floor Thursday; they have already started to clear away procedural hurdles that would prevent them from passing the spending cut proposal ASAP.
Throwing another wrinkle into it all, though, is that House GOP leaders don't want the Senate amending the package at all, knowing their members will be jammed with changes they don't like and be forced to choose between passing a watered-down product or missing the deadline to act.
'I think you got to respect the White House's request, and that's what we did, so I hope that's what we get back,' Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday. 'There are two big categories of rescissions, and I'm not sure either of them should be subject to dispute.'
It's also unclear whether an amended rescissions package would even have the support in the Republican House. Fiscal hawks are already drawing red lines, with Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) going as far as telling POLITICO he won't support a rescissions package that is 'a penny less' than the House-approved version.
MEANWHILE, IN OTHER FUNDING FIGHTS — Senate appropriators remain at a standstill on moving a funding bill forward for the Commerce and Justice departments. They're trying to schedule a briefing with the FBI on the administration's rationale for abandoning the plan to move the bureau to suburban Maryland, according to Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), whose stand against Trump's desire for a site in the District of Columbia derailed a markup of the bill last week.
But Van Hollen insists that even if the FBI assures senators that the Washington location is a secure site, he won't back off his attempt to block the administration from diverting about $1.4 billion that has been set aside for relocating the agency's campus to Maryland.
Across the Capitol: House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said that House leaders began whipping votes Monday night as the chamber prepares to take its vote on the $831.5 billion defense appropriations bill later this week. While defense appropriations bills have been bipartisan in the past, Republicans are expecting this measure to be a largely party-line affair.
What else we're watching:
— Epstein meltdown: We'll see if Republican leaders' headache from their members over the DOJ's failure to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein continues. Rep. Norman voted Monday in favor of a Democratic amendment in the House Rules Committee that would have forced a floor vote on the DOJ releasing more materials from the federal case.
— Russia sanctions timeline: The bipartisan Russian sanctions bill might stall in the House and Senate after Trump announced secondary tariffs on countries trading with Russia. Thune said Monday he would hold off on advancing the bill for now. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise also said a vote could be delayed to post-August recess.
— Dems' last stand against a controversial Trump pick: Senate Democrats are making a final bid to draw the spotlight to a whistleblower's allegations that Emil Bove, a top Justice Department official and 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, urged defiance of the same judicial branch he is seeking to join. Democrats want the whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, to testify before senators prior to their confirmation vote on Bove, which is set for Thursday morning.
Jordain Carney, Katherine Tully-McManus, Jennifer Scholtes, Meredith Lee Hill and Cassandra Dumay contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
a few seconds ago
- Boston Globe
1.4m of the nation's poorest renters risk losing their homes with Trump's proposed HUD time limit
Still, the 33-year-old single mother is grateful she has stable housing — experts estimate just 1 in 4 low-income households eligible for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rental assistance get the benefits. And now Hopkins is at risk of losing her home, as federal officials move to restrict HUD policy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Amid a worsening national affordable housing and homelessness crisis, President Donald Trump's administration is determined to reshape HUD's expansive role providing stable housing for low-income people, which has been at the heart of its mission for generations. The proposed changes include a two-year limit on the federal government's signature rental assistance programs. Advertisement At a June congressional budget hearing, HUD Secretary Scott Turner argued policies like time limits will fix waste and fraud in public housing and Section 8 voucher programs. 'It's broken and deviated from its original purpose, which is to temporarily help Americans in need,' Turner said. 'HUD assistance is not supposed to be permanent.' Advertisement But the move to restrict such key subsidies would mark a significant retreat from the scope of HUD's work. Millions of tenants moved in with the promise of subsidized housing for as long as they were poor enough to remain qualified, so time limits would be a seismic shift that could destabilize the most vulnerable households, many unlikely to ever afford today's record-high rents. New research from New York University, obtained exclusively by The Associated Press, found that if families were cut off after two years, 1.4 million households could lose their vouchers and public housing subsidies — largely working families with children. This would lead housing authorities to evict many families, the report said. A broad time limit would cause 'substantial disruption and dislocation,' the it said, noting the policy is largely untested and most of the few housing authorities to voluntarily try it eventually abandoned the pilots. A break from HUD's long-held purpose of helping house the poor could also jeopardize its contracts with private landlords, who say they're already feeling the uncertainty as public housing authorities from Seattle to Atlanta announce they're scaling back in anticipation of federal funding cuts. Critics fear the restriction could derail those working towards self-sufficiency — defeating the goal time-limit supporters hope to achieve. HUD spokesperson Kasey Lovett pushed back on the NYU study. 'There is plenty of data that strongly supports time limits and shows that long-term government assistance without any incentive disincentivizes able-bodied Americans to work,' Lovett said in a statement. She primarily cited statistics suggesting low employment among HUD-subsidized tenants. Hopkins said the policy would likely leave her and her son homeless in an economy that often feels indifferent to working poor people like her. Advertisement 'A two-year time limit is ridiculous,' she said. 'It's so disrespectful. I think it's dehumanizing — the whole system.' Working families are most at risk Researchers from the Housing Solutions Lab at New York University's Furman Center analyzed HUD's data over a 10-year period and found about 70% of households who could be affected by a two-year limit had already been living on those subsidies for two or more years. That's based on 2024 estimates and doesn't include elderly and disabled people who wouldn't be subject to time limits. Exempted households make up about half of the roughly 4.9 million households getting rental assistance. In the first study to examine the proposed policy's possible impacts, the NYU researchers found time limits would largely punish families who are working but earning far below their area's median income, which would ultimately shift federal rental assistance away from households with kids. 'Housing assistance is especially impactful for children,' said Claudia Aiken, the study co-author and director of new research partnerships for the Housing Solutions Lab. Their health, education, employment and earnings potential can 'change in really meaningful ways if they have stable housing,' she said. It would affect people like Hopkins, whose family was on a years-long waitlist in the expensive region where she grew up. In July 2022, she and her son moved into a two-bedroom public housing unit in Woodinville, Washington. She pays $450 a month in rent — 30% of her household income. A market-rate apartment in the area costs at least $2,000 more, according to the King County Housing Authority, which in June announced it would pause issuing some new vouchers. Hopkins knows she could never afford to live in her home state without rental assistance. It was a relief they could stay as long as they needed. She had been struggling to scrape together hundreds of dollars more a month for her previous trailer home. Advertisement 'There's no words to put on feeling like your housing is secure,' Hopkins said. 'I feel like I was gasping for air and I'm finally able to breathe.' She credits the housing subsidy for her ability to finally leave an abusive marriage, and still dreams of more — perhaps her own catering business or working as a party decorator. 'We all can't be lawyers and doctors — and two years isn't enough to even become that,' Hopkins said. Since learning of Trump's proposal, Hopkins said she's been haunted by thoughts of shoving her possessions into a van with her son, upending the stability she built for him. 'Difficult to do well' The average household in HUD-subsidized housing stays about six years, studies show. HUD funds local public housing projects where nearly 1 million households live and the Section 8 vouchers that about 4 million households use to offset their private rentals. There's been little guidance from HUD on how time-limited housing assistance would be implemented — how it would be enforced, when the clock starts and how the exemptions would be defined. Both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged the potential for time limits to help curb HUD's notorious waitlists. Hard-liners contend the threat of housing loss will push people to reach self-sufficiency; others see limits, when coupled with support and workforce incentives, as a means to motivate tenants to improve their lives. Yet there are strikingly few successful examples. NYU researchers identified just 17 public housing authorities that have tested time limits. None of the programs were designed for only two years and 11 abandoned the restriction — despite being able to use federal dollars for services to help people achieve self-sufficiency. Several agencies that dropped the limits said tenants still struggled to afford housing after their time was up. Advertisement 'These policies are complex and difficult to monitor, enforce, and do well,' NYU's Aiken said. The city of Keene, New Hampshire, tried five-year time limits starting in 2001, but terminated the policy before fully enforcing it to avoid kicking out households that would still be 'rent burdened, or potentially homeless,' said Josh Meehan, executive director of Keene Housing. In California, Shawnté Spears of the Housing Authority of San Mateo County said the agency has kept its five-year time limit in tandem with educational programs she says have 'given folks motivation' to meet their goals. It also gives more people the chance to use vouchers, she said. NYU's Aiken acknowledged HUD's long waitlists make the current system 'a bit of a lottery,' adding: 'You could say that time limits are a way of increasing people's odds in that lottery.' The landlord's dilemma HUD's Section 8 programs have long depended on hundreds of thousands of for-profit and nonprofit small business owners and property managers to accept tenant vouchers. Now, landlords fear a two-year limit could put their contracts for HUD-subsidized housing in limbo. Amid the uncertainty, Denise Muha, executive director of the National Leased Housing Association, said multiple landlord groups have voiced their concerns about HUD's next budget in a letter to congressional leaders. She said landlords generally agree two years is simply not enough time for most low-income tenants to change their fortunes. Advertisement 'As a practical matter, you're going to increase your turnover, which is a cost,' Muha said. 'Nobody wants to throw out their tenants without cause.' It's always been a significant lift for private landlords to work with HUD subsidies, which involve burdensome paperwork, heavy oversight and maintenance inspections. But the trade-off is a near guarantee of dependable longer-term renters and rental income. If that's compromised, some landlords say they'd pull back from the federal subsidy programs. Brad Suster, who owns 86 Chicago-area units funded by HUD, said accepting subsidies could become risky. 'Would we have the same reliability that we know has traditionally come for countless years from the federal government?' Suster said. 'That's something landlords and owners want to know is there.' The diminishing housing stock available to low-income tenants has been a brewing problem for HUD. Between 2010 and 2020, some 50,000 housing providers left the voucher program, the agency has reported. Chaos and trade-offs, critics say It's up for debate whether lawmakers will buy into Trump's vision for HUD. This week the U.S. House appropriations committee is taking up HUD's 2026 budget, which so far makes no mention of time limits. HUD's Lovett noted the Senate's budget plans for the agency have not yet been released, and said the administration remains focused on future implementation of time limits. 'HUD will continue to engage with colleagues on the hill to ensure a seamless transition and enforcement of any new time limit,' Lovett said in a statement. Noëlle Porter, the director of government affairs at the National Housing Law Project, said Trump's fight for time limits is far from over, noting that legislative and rule changes could make them a reality. 'It is clearly a stated goal of the administration to impose work requirements and time limits on rental assistance, even though it would be wildly unpopular,' Porter said. Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina says there's no evidence time limits would save HUD money. 'This doesn't help families who already are working multiple jobs to become self-sufficient,' Clyburn said at a June hearing. 'Instead, it creates chaos, financial uncertainty and pushes these families into more severe trade-offs.' Time limits could imperil Aaliyah Barnes' longtime dream of graduating college and becoming a nurse, finding a job and a home she can afford. The 28-year-old single mom in Louisville, Kentucky, this year joined Family Scholar House, which provides counseling and support for people pursuing an education — and, to Barnes' relief, housing. Her apartment is paid for by a Section 8 voucher. In March, Barnes moved in and her 3-year-old son, Aarmoni, finally got his own room, where she set up a learning wall. Previously, she had struggled to afford housing on her wages at a call center — and living with her mom, two sisters and their kids in a cramped house was an environment ridden with arguments. The stable future she's building could disappear, though, if she's forced out in two years when her schooling is expected to take three years. 'I'd be so close, but so far away,' Barnes said. Kramon reported from Atlanta.
Boston Globe
a few seconds ago
- Boston Globe
Republican senators caution Trump against firing Fed chair Jerome Powell
Advertisement The measure of support from GOP members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs showed how traditional Republicans are carefully navigating a presidency in which Trump often flirts with ideas — like steep tariffs or firing the Fed chair — that threaten to undermine confidence in the U.S. economy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Tillis, who recently decided not to seek reelection after clashing with Trump, later told The Associated Press that the economic fallout from Powell's firing would mostly hurt 'little guys like me that grew up in trailer parks that may have a few thousand dollars in a 401k.' He also pointed out that the underlying complaint that Trump has with the Fed — its reluctance to cut interest rates — is not controlled by Powell alone, but instead a 12-member committee. Advertisement 'The markets expect an independent, central bank,' said GOP South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, who cautioned against firing Powell. 'And if they thought for a minute that he wasn't independent, it would cast a spell over the forecasts and the integrity of the decisions being made by the bank.' Still, plenty of other Republicans think that dismissing Powell is a fine idea. 'The most incompetent, worst Federal Reserve chairman in American history should resign,' said GOP Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno. Trump said he was also encouraged to fire Powell during a meeting with about a dozen far-right House members Tuesday evening. Do presidents have authority to fire the Fed chair? House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters that he was 'unhappy with the leadership' at the Fed, but added 'I'm honestly not sure whether that executive authority exists' to fire Powell. House Financial Services Committee chair French Hill has underscored that presidents don't have the authority to fire the Fed chair, yet has also been sympathetic to Trump's complaints about Powell's leadership. He and other Republicans have also noted that Powell's term as chair is ending next year anyway, and Trump will have an opportunity to name a new chair then. When Congress started the Federal Reserve over 100 years ago, it insulated it from political pressure by stipulating that its governors and chair could only be fired 'for cause' — a higher bar than most political appointees. However, the Trump administration has maneuvered to meet that standard by accusing Powell of mishandling a $2.5 billion renovation project at the Fed's headquarters. 'When his initial attempts to bully Powell failed, Trump and Republicans in Congress suddenly decided to look into how much the Fed is spending on building renovations,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a speech Wednesday. 'Independence does not mean impunity and I have long pushed for more transparency and accountability at the Fed. But give me a break.' Advertisement After Powell sent Congress a letter detailing parts of the renovation project, Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate Banking Committee chair, released a short statement saying Scott 'has continued to call for increased transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve, and this letter is consistent with improving the communication and transparency he is seeking.' Avoiding a protracted legal battle Regardless, it would be legally dubious to fire Powell over the renovation. 'That would be litigated and I don't see a reason, for cause or otherwise, to remove him,' Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican member of the Senate committee that oversees the Fed, told reporters this week. He added that he understood the president's 'frustration' with the Fed's reluctance to lower interest rates as it tries to tamp down inflation, saying, 'I get that, but I think it's very important the Federal Reserve remains independent.' Even those Republicans who argued that the president has grounds to fire Powell and piled criticism on the central banker conceded that it would still be a painful step. 'That's a decision the president will make, and he's being very deliberate about it,' said Moreno, the Ohio senator who called for Powell's resignation. 'But I don't think we should put the country through any of that.'
San Francisco Chronicle
a few seconds ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republican senators caution Trump against firing Fed chair Jerome Powell
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is gaining some key backing on Capitol Hill from GOP senators who fear the repercussions if President Donald Trump follows through with threats to try and remove the politically independent central banker. As Trump seemingly waffled back and forth this week on trying to dismiss the Fed chair, some Republicans in Congress began to speak up and warn that such a move would be a mistake. Trump would potentially obliterate the Fed's independence from political influence and inject uncertainty into the foundations of the U.S. economy if he fires Powell. 'If anybody thinks it would be a good idea for the Fed to become another agency in the government subject to the president, they're making a huge mistake,' GOP North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said in a floor speech. The measure of support from GOP members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs showed how traditional Republicans are carefully navigating a presidency in which Trump often flirts with ideas — like steep tariffs or firing the Fed chair — that threaten to undermine confidence in the U.S. economy. Tillis, who recently decided not to seek reelection after clashing with Trump, later told The Associated Press that the economic fallout from Powell's firing would mostly hurt 'little guys like me that grew up in trailer parks that may have a few thousand dollars in a 401k.' He also pointed out that the underlying complaint that Trump has with the Fed — its reluctance to cut interest rates — is not controlled by Powell alone, but instead a 12-member committee. 'The markets expect an independent, central bank,' said GOP South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, who cautioned against firing Powell. 'And if they thought for a minute that he wasn't independent, it would cast a spell over the forecasts and the integrity of the decisions being made by the bank.' 'The most incompetent, worst Federal Reserve chairman in American history should resign,' said GOP Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno. Trump said he was also encouraged to fire Powell during a meeting with about a dozen far-right House members Tuesday evening. Do presidents have authority to fire the Fed chair? House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters that he was 'unhappy with the leadership" at the Fed, but added 'I'm honestly not sure whether that executive authority exists' to fire Powell. House Financial Services Committee chair French Hill has underscored that presidents don't have the authority to fire the Fed chair, yet has also been sympathetic to Trump's complaints about Powell's leadership. He and other Republicans have also noted that Powell's term as chair is ending next year anyway, and Trump will have an opportunity to name a new chair then. When Congress started the Federal Reserve over 100 years ago, it insulated it from political pressure by stipulating that its governors and chair could only be fired 'for cause' — a higher bar than most political appointees. However, the Trump administration has maneuvered to meet that standard by accusing Powell of mishandling a $2.5 billion renovation project at the Fed's headquarters. 'When his initial attempts to bully Powell failed, Trump and Republicans in Congress suddenly decided to look into how much the Fed is spending on building renovations,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a speech Wednesday. 'Independence does not mean impunity and I have long pushed for more transparency and accountability at the Fed. But give me a break.' After Powell sent Congress a letter detailing parts of the renovation project, Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate Banking Committee chair, released a short statement saying Scott 'has continued to call for increased transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve, and this letter is consistent with improving the communication and transparency he is seeking.' Avoiding a protracted legal battle "That would be litigated and I don't see a reason, for cause or otherwise, to remove him,' Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican member of the Senate committee that oversees the Fed, told reporters this week. He added that he understood the president's 'frustration' with the Fed's reluctance to lower interest rates as it tries to tamp down inflation, saying, 'I get that, but I think it's very important the Federal Reserve remains independent.' Even those Republicans who argued that the president has grounds to fire Powell and piled criticism on the central banker conceded that it would still be a painful step. 'That's a decision the president will make, and he's being very deliberate about it," said Moreno, the Ohio senator who called for Powell's resignation. 'But I don't think we should put the country through any of that."
