‘Musk has bad info': Mike Johnson downplays billionaire's warnings on Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful bill'
Speaker Mike Johnson firmly sided with US President Donald Trump in his fallout with Elon Musk, dismissing Musk's criticism of the GOP tax and budget bill. Johnson said the bill isn't crafted to 'please the richest man in the world' but to help working families. Despite Musk's public pushback and threats to fund opposition, Johnson says Republican offices have received 'almost no calls,' claiming the public sees the legislation as exciting and necessary.
Show more
Show less
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Senate GOP Seeks to Scale Back Food Aid Cuts in Trump Tax Bill
Bloomberg Updated 12 Jun 2025, 02:52 AM IST Senate Republicans plan to scale back cuts to federal food aid for the poor that their counterparts in the House used to help pay for Donald Trump's massive tax and spending package, a key senator said Wednesday. The Senate version of the tax legislation would exempt states that keep their food stamp payment error rates low from a new cost-shifting provision House Republican imposed requiring state governments to cover as much as a quarter of the cost of federal food stamps received by their residents, Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman said. Boozman, whose committee has jurisdiction over portions of the legislation covering federal food aid and farm subsidies, said the Senate version also would exempt parents of children younger than 10 years old from work requirements for food assistance. The House version of the tax bill imposes work requirements on parents once their children turn 7 years old. The House version of the legislation would require states to pay between 5% and 25% of the cost of benefits their residents receive through federal food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SN. States with lower payment error rates would pay a smaller share of food stamp costs. The new requirements for SN will be delayed to 2028 to give states time to adjust, Boozman said. The Senate version would exempt states with a payment error rate below 6% from the cost-sharing requirement, Boozman said. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee considered the House version too burdensome on states, the Arkansas senator said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
What the Harvard investigation means for the future of diversity in US higher education
A new congressional investigation into Harvard University's faculty hiring practices is drawing national attention—and raising questions about the future of diversity efforts in US higher education. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now With President Donald Trump leading a broader political campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, the Harvard case could be a turning point for how universities approach hiring across the country. Recently, nine Republican members of the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber, alleging that the university may be violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by considering race and gender in its hiring decisions. As reported by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers demanded documents and internal policies that relate to hiring practices, with a deadline of June 25, 2025. Focus on race and gender in hiring under legal scrutiny The investigation was triggered in part by leaked internal documents, published by conservative activist Christopher F. Rufo. These materials included a 2023 Harvard guide that encouraged faculty search committees to "consider reading the applications of women and minorities first" and give such candidates a "second look," especially when placement goals were in place. As noted by the Harvard Crimson , the guide also recommended monitoring racial and gender diversity in applicant pools. The letter also cited interview prompts reportedly used by Harvard since 2021. Candidates were asked to define diversity, explain its role in their careers, and describe challenges in diverse environments. As quoted by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers said these practices raise serious concerns under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race or sex. A national precedent for other universities Higher education experts believe the investigation could set a precedent that pressures other US universities to revise or roll back DEI-related hiring practices. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Following a Title VII complaint filed by Andrea R. Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Harvard Medical School removed several diversity-focused programs and quietly deleted a public pledge on inclusive hiring. The timing of the probe also follows the US Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions. While that ruling focused on Title VI, the Republican lawmakers argued—according to the Harvard Crimson —that "the principle of equal treatment under the law certainly applies to Title VII as well." More scrutiny likely as politics meets policy With multiple investigations already underway into Harvard's conduct, including probes into campus antisemitism and research ties with China, lawmakers appear poised to increase pressure on elite institutions. As the Harvard Crimson noted, this marks the reemergence of the House Education and the Workforce Committee as a powerful force in congressional oversight. For many in academia, the Harvard investigation is not just about one university—it may be a signal of shifting legal standards and political realities for higher education across the US.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
New York backs California in opposing Trump's troop deployment in LA
New York Attorney General Letitia James joined California in condemning the Trump administration for deploying troops from the state's National Guard to respond to immigration protests in Los Angeles. In a joint statement with Democratic attorneys general from 17 other states, James said the deployment was 'unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic' because it was taken without California's consent. The dispute is the latest flash point in a broader legal fight over the limits of President Donald Trump's executive power. 'The federal administration should be working with local leaders to keep everyone safe, not mobilising the military against the American people,' James said in the statement. 'We oppose any action from this administration that will sow chaos, inflame tensions, and put people's lives at risk – including those of our law enforcement officers.' The Trump administration deployed thousands of National Guard troops in recent days to respond to protests in Los Angeles, over the objections of state and city officials. Trump called the demonstrations 'migrant riots' and said the city would have 'burned to the ground' if not for the soldiers. The president and California Governor Gavin Newsom have traded barbs over attempts to quell unrest in the city. Newsom said the decision to send in troops was illegal, and Trump suggested that Newsom should be arrested for his response to the protests. At least 400 people have been arrested in the greater Los Angeles area since the weekend amid clashes between police and demonstrators rallying in response to increasingly aggressive raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Mayor Karen Bass imposed a nighttime curfew on Tuesday in a one-square-mile section of downtown where tensions have run high during days of demonstrations. She said 23 businesses were looted the night before, many were also vandalised and the area had been covered in graffiti. California is seeking a court order to limit military involvement in the protests over Trump's immigration raids. US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco set deadlines for each side to file written arguments in the state's lawsuit and scheduled a hearing for Thursday afternoon. Attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont joined James in opposing Trump's efforts to mobilize troops. Other state leaders have expressed support for Trump's decision, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, who vowed to use National Guard troops if needed in protests planned for June 14 in the state. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, also a Republican, offered to deploy members of the Florida State Guard to assist efforts to respond to the California protests, but Newsom rejected his offer, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
