Iowa's revenue shortfall becomes political fodder for 2026 campaign
(Photo illustration with Capitol photo by Iowa Capital Dispatch and background via Getty Images)
The Iowa state government will be dipping into reserve funds to meet spending obligations in the 2026 fiscal year under the budget passed by lawmakers in 2025 — a decision Republican leaders said was accounted for when they approved income tax cuts, but that Democrats said could leave the state in a risky position in the case of economic downturns.
The merits of the state tax cuts and Republicans' budget decisions have become partisan talking points in the early days of the 2026 campaign, as candidates begin to position themselves to run for governor and other offices.
Here's a look at some of the key budget decisions lawmakers made this year:
The $9.425 billion budget came in above the $8.5 billion in projected revenue for FY 2026. To finance the difference, lawmakers approved taking an estimated $917 million in funding from the state's reserves, Taxpayer Relief Fund and budget surplus from previous years to fully fund state priorities. In later negotiations, legislators also agreed to use $26 million from the Iowa's Sports Wagering Fund to provide money for priorities like paraeducator pay and the public safety equipment fund.
The FY 2026 budget will fund the state beginning July 1, 2025. It's contains $478.1 million more — or 5.34% — than the FY 2025 budget of $8.947 billion.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said Iowans should be aware that this year's budget reflects an unsustainable spending model for the state, as the funds being used to make up for the revenue shortfall are one-time money.
'It's important that Iowans know that we're spending on ongoing expenses out of the state savings account, and that that's not a sustainable way to govern,' Konfrst, D-Windsor Heights, told reporters at the end of the 2025 legislative session. 'And the reason for that is because Republicans, who have been in charge for 10 years, have been unable to manage this budget in a way that's truly going to be responsible and actually be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.'
The state's budget — and the factors that led to decreased revenue — are likely to be a major talking point for Democrats heading into the 2026 election season. One of the largest reasons why Iowa's revenue fell was because of recent cuts to individual and corporate income taxes.
In 2024, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law a measure speeding up previous income tax cuts, which reduced the individual income tax rate from 5.7% in 2024 to a single 3.8% rate beginning in 2025.
House Speaker Pat Grassley said Friday on an episode of 'Iowa Press' that Republicans chose to make this cut — knowing that the move would cause a loss in state financial returns — because Iowans had 'overpaid' through income taxes in previous years, money that went into the Taxpayer Relief Fund. The Taxpayer Relief Fund holds $4 billion, and that's just one of the state's pots of unspent money. There's also a $2 billion general fund surplus and $961 million in Iowa's reserve accounts.
'The reason we felt confident in being able to do (tax cuts) is we felt we had an overcollection from Iowans, we needed to get that back into their pockets,' Grassley said. 'I think what we've done as we approached this, we expected that there may be less revenue coming in, but typically when you cut taxes that is what comes with it. Thankfully, we have those backstops there that were in place for that reason. And, like I said, in a $9.4 billion budget, the state of Iowa is sitting on roughly $7 billion between those accounts that I just touched on. I think that puts us in a very strong position and why we felt confident and still feel confident moving forward.'
He said this funding is being used to 'offset any of those bumps in the road' in the implementation of tax cuts, but said Republicans believe the state's revenue will increase again because the tax cuts will stimulate the Iowa's economy.
But Democrats said while these savings can be used to make up for current budget shortages, these should not be relied on to meet the state's spending obligations. Following the March Revenue Estimating Conference, Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, released information from the Iowa Department of Management's five-year budget projections, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, that found the Reynolds administration's budget plan for the next five years would continue to draw money from the state's reserves, Taxpayer Relief Fund and Economic Emergency Fund.
'Republicans are breaking their own rule of using one-time funds for ongoing expenses, and Iowa taxpayers are footing the bill,' Petersen said in a statement.
During floor debates on appropriations bills, Democrats repeatedly emphasized the larger problems with the FY 2026 budget, saying the Legislature should not be drawing money from savings and reserves to fund annual expenses. Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, D-West Des Moines, criticized Republicans during floor debate on the health and human services budget bill for both irresponsible budgeting practices and for ot providing enough funding to meet Iowans' needs in their proposal.
'One of the biggest pieces that we have to talk about here is how the majority party's failed economic policies mean that we don't have enough revenue to cover this inadequate budget,' Trone Garriott said. '… We could do a lot better for a lot of people, and I'm sorry that we're not making that effort in this budget.'
Trone Garriott, as well as Konfrst, are running as Democratic candidates in Iowa's 3rd Congressional District in 2026, and have been critical of both state and federal GOP budget practices. Discussions on Iowa's budget could also play a role in statewide elected races, like in the gubernatorial race. As Reynolds announced that she will not seek reelection, multiple Republicans — including Speaker Grassley — have said they are considering running to become the GOP nominee in 2026.
Though the budget has been approved by lawmakers, the governor still must sign off on the appropriations bills. She has the ability to line-item veto specific funding provisions within these budgets, meaning funding for some of the provisions approved by the legislature could be cut by the governor.
As it stands, here are some of the ways state money is appropriated in the upcoming year's budget:
An expense that Democratic legislators have repeatedly criticized and pointed to as a place for cuts is the Education Savings Account (ESA) program. It provides state dollars for K-12 students' private school tuition and associated costs. The program, approved in 2023, has limited Iowans' eligibility based on income for the first two years of implementation. Beginning the the 2025-2026 school year, families of any income level can receive the public funding for private school costs through the program.
The most recent estimates put ESA spending at $314 million for the upcoming year, a roughly $96 million increase from the current fiscal year.
There is not an appropriations limit for the state program, meaning the estimate could differ from how much is actually spent. The money in ESA accounts is tied to the state's state supplemental aid (SSA) rate for per-pupil spending for public K-12 schools — $7,988 per student for the upcoming school year.
Lawmakers passed a 2% SSA rate for the FY 2026 budget as part of a total $3.9 billion in spending for the state's public K-12 school system.
This is not the only money going toward Iowa education in this year's budget. Senate File 647, the education appropriations bill — separate budget from SSA — allocated more than $1.033 billion. Much of that funding went to Iowa's higher education institutions, which included a $7.5 million funding increase for the Iowa community colleges and a $5.5 million increase for the Iowa Board of Regents governing the state's public universities.
Additionally, lawmakers passed Senate File 660, a measure providing $14 million to fund a pay supplement for paraeducators and other educational support staff through the Sports Wagering Fund. This money, one of the hold-ups in budget negotiations between House and Senate Republicans, was a funding component approved in 2024 as part of the law making changes to Iowa's Area Education Agencies (AEAs) but was not included in the budget proposal agreed upon between Senate Republicans and Reynolds.
The state's standing appropriations bill, which contains SSA funding as well as other state spending obligations, also contained a $25 million reduction in funding for AEAs.
Another large piece of state spending was allocated through House File 1049, the state's health and human services budget. The $2.469 billion appropriations bill funds the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Veterans Affairs.
A majority — $1.903 billion — of the spending goes to Medicaid and related state programs, including the Iowa Health and Wellness Plan (IHAWP, providing expanded Medicaid health coverage, and the Healthy and Well Kids in Iowa (Hawki) program for uninsured children of low-income families. This year's budget included a $230.4 million increase to make up for expected funding shortfalls for Medicaid and Hawki.
Rep. Ann Meyer, R-Fort Dodge, said during floor debate the state was 'fully funding Medicaid' through the bill, but Democrats questioned whether state funding will be sufficient considering Medicaid cuts currently being considered by Congress.
The appropriations measure includes $20 million for nursing facility providers' Medicaid rate rebasing, higher reimbursements for maternal health providers, and an increase from $50 to $55 in personal needs allowances given to individuals on Medicaid in care facilities each month.
It also includes a restriction on Medicaid coverage, banning payments through the health plan for transgender Iowans seeking physical medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria, such as sex reassignment surgery and hormone treatment therapy. The bill was amended from an earlier version that included language to stop Medicaid coverage for all forms of gender dysphoria treatment, including mental health care.
Democrats still argued the provision was unjust, as it prevented Iowans from receiving lifesaving medical treatment. Sen. Molly Donahue, D-Marion, argued the measure violated the Equal Protections Clause in the U.S. and Iowa constitution, as it would deny a group of people medical treatment that remains accessible to others. Cisgender people could still receive hormone therapy if deemed medically necessary, Donahue said as an example, while transgender people could not.
Medicaid coverage for transition-related treatments was brought up as one of the motivators to remove gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Act earlier in the 2025 legislative session. Previous attempts by Republican lawmakers to ban Medicaid coverage for transgender Iowans were struck down because of the protections provided by the Iowa Civil Rights Act, and the Iowa Supreme Court has not weighed in on the constitutionality of such a ban.
Another component of health-related spending passed this year was allocation of money from the Opioid Settlement Fund. Lawmakers have failed in previous legislative sessions to pass a bill distributing money from the fund, which currently contains more than $56 million, but were able to get House File 1038 to the governor's desk in 2025.
The bill appropriates $29 million from the fund to HHS for disbursement to several specific organizations and programs working on addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs in FY 2026. In future years, money will be allotted from the fund to state agencies, with HHS receiving 75% and the Iowa Attorney General's office receiving 25%, with these entities then choosing where the money will go. Iowa is expected to receive more than $325 million in the fund between fiscal years 2021 through 2039, according to the AG's office, with settlement funds split between local governments and the state.
House lawmakers including Rep. Gary Mohr, R-Bettendorf, said he was disappointed with some aspects of the measure, but that the compromise was needed or else 'we would have gone a third year without using these funds to address opioid abuse in Iowa.' The Opioid Settlement Fund, created in 2022, is money collected by Iowa through lawsuits brought by states against drug manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies for their roles in the opioid epidemic. A majority of this money, 85%, is obligated through the cases to be spent on opioid addiction treatment and prevention.
Democratic lawmakers said they were frustrated that the Opioid Settlement Fund money will be distributed through HHS and the AG's office under the agreement, arguing this structure will provide less oversight and input from communities in need, but supported the bill as a means to distribute money.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The combined spending for Iowa's law enforcement and courts systems came to a total of $924.9 million for FY 2026.
The judicial branch's budget, Senate File 648, came to $221.83 million. It included $1.27 million more in funding for judicial officer salaries, amounting to a 2.5% pay raise for justices and judges — an increase Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen called for in January to help Iowa be more competitive and help current issues with filling judicial vacancies across the state.
Senate File 644, the budget funding state law enforcement entities including the departments of Justice, Corrections, Public Safety and Homeland Security and Emergency Management, appropriated $703.1 million from the general fund, $20.6 from other funds and several standing appropriations. The budget included a $7.6 million increase for the state Department of Corrections, allocated to several state facilities and department efforts.
It also had a a $2.1 million increase for the Office of the State Public Defender — including a $1.95 million transfer from the Indigent Defense Fund and $100,000 from the College Student Aid Commission designated for the Rural Attorney Recruitment Assistance Program. Rep. Brian Lohse, R-Bondurant, said the bill includes a total increase of $1.07 million for indigent defense, raising the pay for attorneys who represent people who cannot hire a lawyer themselves by approximately $2 per hour.
Lawmakers also approved adding $150,000 in new money for the victims assistance grant fund, run through the state Attorney General's office, to provide services for human trafficking victims.
The upcoming fiscal year's funding for the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa Department of Natural Resources and related state programs totaled $46.6 million from the general fund, in addition $99.4 million coming from other funds.
Senate File 646 shifts $2.5 million from the existing Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Fund and provides $1.05 million in new funding to create the Iowa Animal Disease Prevention fund, focused on efforts to research vaccines, track outbreaks and provide equipment to treat and prevent animal diseases. This was a change requested by Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig following the outbreak of the highly pathogenic avian influenza.
The measure also makes changes to the Choose Iowa program focused on producers that sell food and goods grown in Iowa. It ends the Choose Iowa pilot purchasing program and creates the Choose Iowa Food Purchasing Program with a $200,000 appropriation going to food banks for the purchase of locally produced food. Democrats criticized the shift from the pilot program, that provided assistance to both food banks and Iowa schools, as the new food purchasing program did not provide funding for schools to be able to purchase locally grown foods.
The Resources Enhancement and Protection (REAP) program, funding local projects related to natural resources conservation and public spaces, received a $12 million appropriation from the Environment First Fund — a lower amount than the $20 million standing appropriation in Iowa Code given to REAP.
Administration and regulation: House File 1044 provides funding for several of Iowa's statewide elected offices as well as state agencies like the Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) and Department of Management and Department of Revenue. It also gives money for state entities like the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) and the state Utilities Board.
This year, the Legislature allocated $73.7 million from the general fund and $134.2 million from other funds through this budget. This year, lawmakers approved a $1.2 million increase for IPERS to hire new staff, and $600,000 for the state's Insurance Division to increase oversight and regulation enforcement for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the businesses that negotiate prescription drug prices between drug manufacturers, health insurance providers and pharmacies.
Economic development: The budget for economic development initiatives, Senate File 645, includes $74.7 million in total spending from the general fund and other state resources. The money from this appropriations pool goes largely to the Iowa Economic Development Authority, Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Workforce Development.
This year's budget reduced funding for the World Food Prize and state tourism office, as well as money for several grant programs. But it also includes a $322,000 bump in funding for the Iowa Arts Council and $350,000 for the Council of Governments (COGS), money which can be leveraged with federal and local dollars to provide $3 million in funding for housing renewal projects across the state according to Rep. Shannon Latham, R-Sheffield. Latham said these projects can be taken on through the continuation of the Housing Renewal Pilot Program, which was extended for three years through the bill.
Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund (RIIF): House File 1039 appropriates $163.8 million from the Rebuild Iowa Infrastructure Fund and the Technology Infrastructure Fund. Though House GOP lawmakers said during debate they could not reach an agreement for several RIIF funding priorities in budget negotiations with the Senate this year, there were still several projects that received funding through the fund this year. The Iowa Law Enforcement Academy received $15 million for the creation of a new driver training facility, and the state historical building received $5 million to buy new storage units for preserving historical artifacts.
Transportation: The state's transportation budget, $502.8 million for FY 2026, does not come from the general fund, but from the Road Use Tax Fund and Primary Road Fund. Senate File 628, providing funding for the Iowa Department of Transportation, included a $20 million increase in Road Use Tax Fund money to modernize the state's drivers and vehicles record system, as well as $18.9 million to renovate the DOT's Waterloo maintenance garage.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far' Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, says he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president (Kevin Dietsch) (Kevin Dietsch/GETTY IMAGESvia AFP) Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X, in a message that was received favorably by the White House. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. ADVERTISEMENT Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." But after Musk's expression of regret, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump was "appreciative," adding that "no efforts" had been made on a threat by Trump to end some of Musk's government contracts. "The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning, and he is appreciative of it," Leavitt said. ADVERTISEMENT According to the New York Times, Musk's message followed a phone call to Trump late on Monday night. Vice President JD Vance and Chief of Staff Susan Wiles had also been working with Musk on how to broker a truce with Trump, the report said. - 'Wish him well' - In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days, with Musk describing the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. ADVERTISEMENT Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both already appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sex trafficking. bur-arp/aha


San Francisco Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counter-offer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely.