Legislation would extend review period between death warrant and execution
State Sen. James Ohrenschall said he 'personally doesn't support the death penalty' and would rather see it abolished, but the legislation would at least ensure attorneys have an adequate amount of time to litigate issues once a death warrant is issued. (Photo: Jeniffer Solis/Nevada Current)
Four years after state lawmakers failed to pass legislation to abolish the death penalty, despite having a Democratic trifecta, a bill this year would extend the time period for carrying out a potential execution.
Nevada law currently calls for an execution to take place between 60 and 90 days after an execution is warranted.
Senate Bill 350, sponsored by Democratic state Sen. James Ohrenschall of Las Vegas, would lengthen the timeframe to between 180 and 270 days.
Ohrenschall said he 'personally doesn't support the death penalty' and would rather see it abolished.
There have been 23 states that have abolished the death penalty, citing concerns including but not limited to racial disparities in the number of death row inmates, the high costs of capital cases going to trial, and documented likely instances of people being put to death after wrongful convictions, as well as people being exonerated while on death row.
The legislation seeks to ensure attorneys have an adequate amount of time to litigate any issues that arise once an execution is ordered, Ohrenschall said.
The legislation would also ensure that there is only one execution warrant that would be pending in Nevada at any given time.
'In Nevada, unlike other states, an execution warrant is issued by the district judge in the county where the conviction occurred,' said David Anthony, an attorney who specializes in capital cases who alongside Ohrenschall described the bill to a legislative panel. 'In many other states, execution warrants are issued by a single entity.'
The bill passed out of the Senate April 21 on a 13-8 party-line vote. The legislation was heard Wednesday by the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Nevada hasn't executed anyone since 2006. The state tried, and failed, to execute Scott Dozier in 2017. A lengthy legal battle over the drugs being used to kill Dozier resulted in the execution being postponed until he died by suicide in early 2019.
Ohrenschall, along with Democratic Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, both introduced separate bills in 2021 to abolish the state's death penalty.
Former Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak said at the time he had a 'hard time with the idea of a complete abolition' and thought executions should be reserved for extreme cases.
Despite uncertainty on whether Sisolak would sign a bill abolishing the death penalty, the Nevada Assembly voted 26-16 in a party line vote to advance Yeager's bill.
The legislation then stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and died without getting another vote.
Anthony said SB 350 represented 'a common sense reform that helps bring the law into conformity with what the actual practice is in litigating capital cases.'
While there are ways for people to appeal their cases and delay their execution, 'there are certain constitutional rights that cannot be litigated until there is an execution warrant,' he said.
The bill, Anthony said, would also give the Nevada Department of Corrections additional time to complete all the protocols statutorily required prior to an execution, including mental health evaluations and health exams.
NDOCDirector James Dzurenda told lawmakers Wednesday the logistics of training staff, notifying victims and procuring the drugs for an execution is hard to accomplish in a short time period.
The logistics for planning more than one execution concurrently would be 'a nightmare process for corrections,' he added.
'What we do is we prepare,' Dzurenda said. 'Even right now we are preparing for an execution in case we get one next week. That's a lot of wasted taxpayer money. If we had an extension at the beginning of an execution we could prepare when we get a warrant. Right now we have to prepare before we get a warrant.'
There are currently 59 people on death row in Nevada according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
But Dzurenda also said that if the timeframe is extended 'too much could actually hurt the process' and opens the possibility for 'appeals that may not have been necessary in my eyes or get these far fetched appeals that could stretch out an execution.'
Similar to efforts to get rid of the death penalty, the Nevada District Attorneys Association opposed efforts to change the timeframe for carrying out executions.
Jennifer Noble, a lobbyist with the association who testified against the bill Wednesday, said there is already a lengthy and robust process for people to challenge and appeal their guilty verdict as well as the death sentence.
'This bill will not make anything easier on victims,' Noble said.
Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in a letter supporting Ohrenschall's legislation, wrote it wouldn't lead to unnecessary delays but 'rather reflect the time actually needed to ensure due process at a time when the stakes could not be higher.'
Mark Bettencourt, the executive director with the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty, said while the coalition was still pursuing an end to the death penalty, the legislation was a 'common sense bill' to ensure that if an execution was carried out it wasn't rushed.
'It's been almost 20 years since we've had an execution in this state,' he said. 'To rush that now risks a botched execution and taking the life of an innocent person.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
13 minutes ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court's blessedly narrow decision about religion in the workplace, explained
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. In 2018, shortly before Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation shifted the Supreme Court drastically to the right, Democratic Justice Elena Kagan laid out her strategy to keep her Court from becoming too ideological or too partisan. The secret, she said, is to take 'big questions and make them small.' Since then, Kagan and her Democratic colleagues have had mixed success persuading their colleagues to decide cases narrowly when they could hand right-wing litigants a sweeping victory. The Court has largely transformed its approach to religion, for example, though it does occasionally hand down religion cases that end less with a bang than with a whimper. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission will likely be remembered as such a whimper. The opinion is unanimous, and it is authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of Kagan's few fellow Democratic justices. The case could have ended in a sweeping decision that severely undermined the rights of many workers. Instead, Sotomayor's opinion focuses on a very narrow distinction between how Wisconsin law treats some religious groups as compared to others. Catholic Charities involved a Wisconsin law that exempts some nonprofits from paying unemployment taxes. This exemption applies only to employers that operate 'primarily for religious purposes.' Wisconsin's state supreme court determined that a 'religious purpose' includes activities like holding worship services or providing religious education, but it does not include secular services like feeding the poor, even if those secular activities are motivated by religion. Related The Supreme Court is leading a Christian conservative revolution The upshot is that Catholic Charities — an organization that is run by the Catholic Church but focuses primarily on secular charitable work — was not exempt from paying unemployment taxes. Sotomayor's decision reverses the state supreme court, so Catholic Charities will now receive an exemption. The Court largely avoids a fight over when businesses with a religious identity can ignore the law In a previous era, the Court was very cautious about permitting religious organizations to claim exemptions, in part because doing so would give some businesses 'an advantage over their competitors.' Such exemptions could also potentially permit employers with a religious identity to exploit their workers. In Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985), for example, the Court considered a religious cult that operated a wide range of commercial businesses. These businesses paid no cash salaries or wages, although they did claim to give workers food, clothing, and shelter. The cult sought an exemption from minimum wage laws and similar workplace protections, but the Court disagreed. A too-broad decision in Catholic Charities could have potentially undermined decisions like Alamo Foundation, by giving some employers a broad right to ignore laws protecting their workers. But Sotomayor's opinion reads like it was crafted to hand Catholic Charities the narrowest possible victory. Under the state supreme court's decision in Catholic Charities, Sotomayor writes, a church-run nonprofit that does entirely secular charity work may not receive an exemption from paying unemployment taxes. But a virtually identical nonprofit that does the exact same work but also engages in 'proselytization' or limits its services to members of the same faith would receive an exemption. This distinction, Sotomayor says, violates the Supreme Court's long-standing rule that the government 'may not 'officially prefe[r]' one religious denomination over another.' The state may potentially require all charities to pay unemployment taxes. But it cannot treat religious charities that seek to convert people, or that limit their services to members of one faith, differently from religious charities that do not do this. In Sotomayor's words, an organization's 'eligibility for the exemption ultimately turns on inherently religious choices (namely, whether to proselytize or serve only co-religionists).' The crux of Sotomayor's opinion is that the decision whether to try to convert people, or whether to serve non-Catholics, is an inherently 'theological' choice. And states cannot treat different religious organizations differently because of their theological choices. Unfortunately, Sotomayor's opinion, which is a brief 15 pages, does not really define the term 'theological.' So it is likely that future courts will have to wrestle with whether other laws that treat some organizations differently do so because of theological differences or for some other reason. It's not hard to imagine a cult like the one in Alamo Foundation claiming that it has a theological objection to paying the minimum wage. But the Catholic Charities opinion also does not explicitly undermine decisions like Alamo Foundation. Nor does it embrace a more sweeping approach proposed by dissenting justices in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, who argued that nonprofits whose 'motivations are religious' may claim an exemption — regardless of what that nonprofit actually does.
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
AOC Scrambles New York City Mayoral Race With Endorsement
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. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made her endorsement in New York City's mayoral race as more progressive Democrats in the city work to consolidate support against front-running former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Why It Matters Ocasio-Cortez remains popular with younger, more progressive voters in New York City, so her support could convince some of those voters to head to the polls for the June 24 primary. Whoever prevails in the primary would become the favorite to win in November, as the city remains a Democratic stronghold. What To Know The progressive congresswoman announced in The New York Times that she is ranking Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, who has polled second behind Cuomo and emerged as a favorite among many left-leaning voters, first in the Democratic primary. New York City uses ranked choice voting in their local elections. She said she will be ranking New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams second, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander third, former Comptroller Scott Stringer fourth and state Senator Zellnor Myrie fifth in her endorsement, the Times reported. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York speaks during a rally in Denver on March 21, 2025. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York speaks during a rally in Denver on March 21, 2025. JASON CONNOLLY/AFP via Getty Images "Assemblymember Mamdani has demonstrated a real ability on the ground to put together a coalition of working-class New Yorkers that is strongest to lead the pack," Ocasio-Cortez told the newspaper. "In the final stretch of the race, we need to get very real about that." Newsweek reached out to the Mamdani and Cuomo campaigns, as well as Ocasio-Cortez's office, for comment via email. Cuomo has established a polling lead over other candidates and is viewed as the leader with less than a month until the primary, as progressives seek to rally behind other candidates to prevent him from becoming the party's nominee because of his more moderate policy positions. A recent Emerson College poll found Cuomo and Mamdani as the top two Democratic candidates. On the first round of voting, 35 percent of respondents said they'd vote for Cuomo, while 23 percent would back Mamdani. By the final round, however, Cuomo had support from 54 percent of respondents, while Mamdani had 46 percent. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from May 23-26 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 after a report from Attorney General Letitia James' office alleged that he sexually harassed multiple female employees and created a toxic working environment, allegations Cuomo has denied. In May, he accused the Trump administration of "election interference" after The New York Times reported it launched a criminal investigation into whether Cuomo lied to Congress about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mamdani has engaged more progressive voters with a more left-leaning platform, emphasizing issues like a rent freeze to deal with rising rent and housing in the city and the establishment of a network of city-owned grocery stores intended to combat rising grocery costs for New Yorkers. Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement comes just one day after the Democratic candidates faced off in their first debate, during which each sought to portray themselves as the strongest to lead the city of more than 8 million people. "I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare, as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in and the difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo," Mamdani said during the debate. What People Are Saying New York City mayoral candidate and Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, in a post on X, formerly Twitter: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a once-in-a-generation leader who has led the fight for working people in Congress. In 2018, she shocked the world and transformed our politics. On June 24, with @AOC's support and this movement behind us, we will do the same." Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times: "Even if the entire left coalesced around any one candidate, an ideological coalition is still insufficient for us to win. We have to have a true working-class coalition." What Happens Next The New York City mayoral primary is set for Tuesday June 24. The winner will face off against a Republican, as well as Mayor Eric Adams, who is seeking reelection as an independent, in November.
CNN
19 minutes ago
- CNN
Live updates: Trump and Musk escalate public feud over agenda bill
Update: Date: Title: Elon Musk says Trump would have lost the election without him Content: Elon Musk said President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans would have lost the 2024 election without his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk said in a post on X. Musk was responding to Trump's statement in the the Oval Office today that he didn't need the tech billionaire to win the election. 'I would have won Pennsylvania regardless of Elon,' Trump said. 'I'm very disappointed with Elon.' Musk spent more than $290 million on the 2024 election, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. The massive sum was rivaled by only a handful of competing mega donors. Update: Date: Title: Republican senators downplay Musk pressure campaign Content: Republicans senators are so far brushing off Elon Musk's call to his massive social media following to turn up the heat on Republican elected officials. 'I don't know,' GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told CNN when asked if his office was receiving more pressure. 'Nobody is calling me.' GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio also said that he has not received an uptick of constituent calls, telling CNN, 'No. I mean, honestly, as you know, most normal people don't watch the inconsistencies of how the sausage is made.' He said that usually those that do call have only seen 'misinformation' about the bill. 'There's a difference in mandatory spending and discretionary spending. So once we explain to them what we're actually doing, they buy into the whole process.' Asked about Musk's influence and platform, and how that could affect support for Trump's agenda, Moreno shot back: 'President Trump has the biggest platform on earth, and the platform that he's advocating for is to prevent that $4 trillion tax increase, fund our military, secure our border and strengthen Medicaid.' GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said 'nah' when asked if he felt like he was under more of a spotlight since Musk made a direct ask to his followers to call elected officials. 'The deal is not done. We got three more weeks. And it will change many times between now and three weeks from now,' Tuberville said. GOP Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has been publicly opposing the legislation, said: 'I'll say in my office, most of the calls, the vast majority, are voting no. But my guess is that's not coming from either my supporters or President Trump's supporters. I take that seriously. I look at it.' Update: Date: Title: Trump is the "key person" to end war in Ukraine, says German chancellor Content: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that President Donald Trump is the 'key person' to bring about an end to the war in Ukraine 'by putting pressure on Russia.' 'We both agree on this war and how terrible this war is going on, and we are both looking for ways to stop it very soon. And I told the president … he is the key person in the world who can really do that now by putting pressure on Russia,' Merz said. The German leader reiterated his country's steadfast commitment to Ukraine, adding that the horrific images from the battlefield are caused by 'Russian weapons against Ukraine.' 'Ukraine is only targeting military targets, not civilians, not energy infrastructure. So this is the difference, and that's the reason why we are trying to do more on Russia,' Merz added. Update: Date: Title: Elon Musk live-posts responses to Trump during bilateral meeting Content: In a stunning real-time response on X, Elon Musk responded to President Donald Trump's comments about him after the tech billionaire slammed his signature legislation. Musk, until recently a White House special employee who oversaw the administration's cost-cutting efforts, denied Trump's claim that the Tesla CEO knew the inner workings of the president's so-called 'big beautiful bill.' Musk also countered that the elimination of America's electric vehicle tax incentives has nothing to do with his opposition to the massive domestic policy bill. 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Musk wrote. 'Whatever. Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk said in a separate post. 'In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this! Either you get a big and ugly bill or a slim and beautiful bill. Slim and beautiful is the way.' Update: Date: Title: Trump sidesteps on Russia sanctions and compares Ukraine war to children's fight Content: President Donald Trump declined to offer specifics on sanctions on Russia during a meeting with German Chancellor Merz in the Oval Office. 'It's in my brain, the deadline, when I see the moment where it's not going to stop,' Trump said, and then looked on to Merz, saying, 'I'm sure you're going to do the same thing.' Trump then added, 'we'll be very, very, very tough,' when pressed about sanctions on Russia. 'And it could be on both countries to be honest. You know, it takes two to tango,' Trump said. Without directly addressing whether he would impose Russian sanctions, the president described a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which he said he gave an analogy likening the war to a playground fight. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy. They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled, sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' Trump continued: 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday, I said, president, maybe you're going to have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.' Update: Date: Title: Trump says US will 'hopefully' have a deal with EU Content: President Donald Trump on Thursday struck a positive tone on a potential trade deal with the European Union during a meeting at the White House with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. 'We'll have a good trade deal,' Trump said. 'I guess that will be mostly determined by the European Union, but you're a very big part of that, so you'll be involved,' Trump said to Merz. Trump's major tariffs on the EU, including a threatened 50% tariff, have been delayed until July 9. Germany is still impacted by tariffs including Trump's 25% tariff on autos, which is in effect. The president said that 'hopefully' there will be a trade deal, or the United States will 'do the tariffs.' 'I mean, I'm okay with the tariffs, or we make a deal with the trade, and I guess that's what we're discussing,' he said. Trump's optimistic remarks came hours after the president separately spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping on a phone call. Investors and economists have been on edge about the impact of the president's trade war. Wall Street in recent weeks has started to bet that Trump will back down on his most aggressive trade war threats. That's spawned the phrase TACO trade, which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. US stocks were in the green during the meeting between Trump and Merz. The Dow rose 130 points, or 0.3%. The S&P 500 was also up 0.3% and the Nasdaq Composite was up 0.5%. Update: Date: Title: Trump says he's "very disappointed" in Musk, confirming their deteriorating relationship Content: President Donald Trump appeared to confirm the deterioration of his relationship with Elon Musk, saying he was 'very disappointed' in the tech billionaire, who exited his top advisory role at the White House and subsequently railed against the president's sweeping tax and spending package. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office less than one week after the two exchanged effusive praise on Musk's last day. Since then, Musk has strongly criticized what Trump calls his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' that has passed the House and faces an uncertain path forward in the Senate, calling the bill, which is a major Trump priority, a 'disgusting abomination.' Trump and Musk have not spoken since Musk lashed out at the legislation, a source familiar with the dynamic told CNN. 'He knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Trump said. The president predicted that though Musk had not personally attacked him, he could soon. 'I'm sure that'll be next. But I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot,' Trump said. Kristen Holmes and Hadas Gold contributed to this post. Update: Date: Title: Trump says he and Xi 'straightened out complexity' of trade deal in phone call Content: President Donald Trump said Thursday that trade talks with China remain on track and that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping 'straightened out any complexity' after a long-awaited phone call earlier in the day. 'We had a very good talk, and we've straightened out any complexity. This is very complex stuff, and we straightened it out,' Trump said from the Oval Office after welcoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to the White House. 'I think we're in very good shape with China and the trade deal,' Trump said. 'We're going to just make sure that everybody understands what the deal is.' The president added that he expected to be traveling to China at some point. 'By the way, he invited me to China, and I invited him here. We both accepted. So I'll be going there with the first lady at a certain point, and he'll be coming here, hopefully, with the first lady of China.' Update: Date: Title: Trump explains why Egypt not part of travel ban after Egyptian national's antisemitic attack in Boulder Content: President Donald Trump said Thursday that Egypt was not included in the list of countries subject to a new travel ban because he believes the country '(has) things under control.' CNN previously reported that Trump made the final decision to sign the proclamation after the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado. The suspect in the attack was an Egyptian national. Asked why Egypt was not one of the banned countries unveiled on Wednesday, Trump said, 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control.' The travel ban, Trump added, 'can't come soon enough. Frankly, we want to keep bad people out of our country. The Biden administration allowed some horrendous people, and we're getting them out one by one, we're not stopping until we get them out.' The countries included, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Wednesday, 'include places that lack proper vetting, exhibit high visa overstay rates, or fail to share identity and threat information.' Update: Date: Title: Trump says he thinks Harvard is 'starting to behave' Content: President Donald Trump said Thursday he thinks Harvard is 'starting to behave,' suggesting the university would be handing over a list of international students attending the school. 'Harvard didn't want to give us that list. They're going to be giving us the list now. I think they're starting to behave, actually, if you want to know the truth,' he told reporters in the Oval Office while meeting with German leader Friedrich Merz. On Wednesday, Trump signed a proclamation suspending international visas for new students at Harvard University. The proclamation temporarily blocks the entry of nearly all new international Harvard students under visas most use to study at US universities or participate in academic exchange programs. Trump on Thursday was asked if he would allow Chinese students into US universities after speaking with Chinese leader Xi Jinping earlier in the day. 'Chinese students are coming. No problem. It's an honor to have them, frankly. We want to have foreign students but we want them to be checked, you know. In the case of Harvard and Columbia and others – all we want to do is see their list. There's no problem with that,' the president said. Update: Date: Title: NOW: Trump greets German chancellor at White House Content: President Donald Trump is meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the White House. It's the first time the two are meeting in-person and comes amid a series of high-stakes International issues. Update: Date: Title: Lawmakers respond to Trump administration's travel ban Content: Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, leaders on the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, shared contrasting perspectives on the travel ban that the Trump administration imposed on 12 countries last night. Grassley, the GOP chair of the committee, said the president was within his rights to impose the ban, referencing national security priorities and 'some terrorist attacks we've had in the United States.' Grassley said he is 'very comfortable' with Trump's proclamation, 'because the president's number-one responsibility is the national security of the United States. And I don't know what the basis was for him making that decision, but I assume it's come because of some terrorist attacks we've had in the United States.' Trump made the final call on signing the proclamation after the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, according to a White House official. He was considering it beforehand, but Sunday's assault put it into motion faster. Grassley continued, saying 'not only that, but it's a foreign policy issue, and you know how the Constitution gives the president of the United States wide sway in foreign policy.' Durbin, meanwhile, criticized the move, saying, 'I don't understand it.' 'The president said this situation, terrible crime in Boulder, was the reason for this. The individual in Boulder was from Egypt,' the Illinois Democrat said. 'The president did not include Egypt on his list of nations of people we don't want in the United States. I can't follow his thinking on this at all.' Update: Date: Title: Trump proclaims Xi call had "very positive conclusion" on trade issues Content: President Donald Trump concluded a long-awaited 90-minute telephone call with President Xi Jinping of China, saying he was encouraged that ongoing trade tensions could soon be resolved. Calling the conversation 'very good,' Trump said follow-up talks would occur 'soon' between the countries' economic teams, and that Xi invited him to visit China. 'During the conversation, President Xi graciously invited the First Lady and me to visit China, and I reciprocated. As Presidents of two Great Nations, this is something that we both look forward to doing,' Trump wrote. Trump said the call focused almost entirely on trade, without touching on other geopolitical issues like an Iran nuclear deal or the Russia-Ukraine war. The call 'resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. He singled out the issue of rare earth minerals — which China had placed restrictions on — as an area where he made progress with his counterpart. 'There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products,' Trump wrote. Update: Date: Title: Democratic lawmakers criticize Trump's travel ban as discriminatory Content: Democratic lawmakers slammed President Donald Trump's proclamation to ban travel from several countries to the US. Here's what they've said: Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, the first Somali-American in Congress, blasted Trump's policy, comparing it to the president's first term, when he barred travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations from coming to the US. 'This discriminatory policy is beyond shameful. Just like his first Muslim Ban, this latest announcement flies in the face of basic morality and goes directly against our values. This racist policy will not make us safe, it will separate families and endanger lives. We cannot let it stand,' Omar said in a post on X. California Sen. Adam Schiff posted on X: 'This is Trump's reckless first term travel ban all over again. Just like before, Trump's expanded ban on travelers from around the world will not improve our national security and will only further isolate the U.S. from the rest of world. Bigotry is not a national security strategy.' Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington pointed to economic harm due to the ban and suggested it would lead to a dangerous precedent. 'Further, banning people fleeing dangerous countries like Afghanistan — a country where many people are in danger due to their work assisting the U.S. military — the Congo, Haiti, and Sudan will only further destabilize global security,' Jayapal said in a statement posted on her social media. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said Trump's travel ban won't make America safer, saying in a post on X: 'We cannot continue to allow the Trump administration to write bigotry and hatred into U.S. immigration policy.' Update: Date: Title: Trump and Xi speak in long-awaited trade call, source says Content: President Donald Trump held a phone call with China's Xi Jinping, a person familiar with the matter said, as the two leaders tussle over trade policy. The White House did not immediately confirm the call, which was also reported by Chinese state media. Remember: Tensions have been rising between the two sides in the weeks after they agreed to a 90-day trade truce last month, which hit pause on their tit-for-tat escalation of tariffs. Trump last week accused China of 'violating' the agreement — a charge Beijing has denied, while it accused the US of taking steps to 'seriously undermine' that consensus. US officials had signaled in recent days that a call between the two leaders could help jump-start progress in expected upcoming trade talks, which had appeared to stall following the initial truce reached in Geneva. Update: Date: Title: Trump issues travel ban on 12 countries Content: President Donald Trump signed a proclamation yesterday evening to ban travel from several countries to the US, citing security risks. The ban will fully restrict entry of nationals from the following 12 countries: People from these seven countries will have partial restriction: The proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves US national interests. The president made the final call on signing the proclamation after the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, according to a White House official. He was considering it beforehand, but Sunday's assault put it into motion faster. Trump said in a video posted yesterday that new countries could be added to the travel ban as 'threats emerge around the world.' Update: Date: Title: Republicans downplay impact of Musk blasting Trump's signature legislation Content: Elon Musk lashed out yesterday at President Donald Trump's agenda bill, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' Both GOP leaders and White House officials are downplaying the actual impact of the tech billionaire's outburst, even as some vent frustration with Musk behind the scenes. White House officials, while annoyed by the matter, said they ultimately did not believe the comments would impact how senators vote on Trump's prized bill. Two administration officials even went as far as suggesting Musk's opposition could actually help Trump's measure, given how toxic the Tesla CEO has become over the course of his time in Trump's orbit. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both evinced no worry whatsoever that it would change Republicans' minds or sink the massive border, tax and spending cuts package. While several GOP senators had been expressing doubts about the bill for weeks, none cited new concerns over Musk's comments. Republican leaders remain bullish that they can deliver the legislation to Trump's desk by July 4 — an ambitious timeline. Watch more from CNN's Kaitlan Collins: Elon Musk lashed out at President Donald Trump's agenda bill — which the president is pressuring GOP senators to support — calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. #cnn #news Update: Date: Title: Speaker Johnson says he will put DOGE spending cuts on House floor next week Content: Speaker Mike Johnson said yesterday that he will put the White House's spending cuts request on the House floor next week. 'Next week, we will put the rescissions bill on the floor of the House and encourage all our Members to support this commonsense measure,' Johnson said in a joint statement with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer and House Republican Chair Lisa McClain. The White House earlier this week sent the $9.4 billion spending cuts request — known as 'rescissions' — to Congress as it seeks to formalize the Department of Government Efficiency's slashes to federal funding. If the package comes to a vote, it can clear both the House and the Senate with a simple majority, meaning Republicans can advance it without Democratic support. Johnson said Monday that he expects there may be 'multiple' such packages coming to the hill in the next few months. 'It's a big priority for me,' Johnson said. Update: Date: Title: Senate leader sets ambitious timeline for vote on Trump's domestic policy bill Content: Senate Majority Leader John Thune is setting an ambitious timeline for a vote on President Donald Trump's domestic policy bill, with the goal of sending it to Trump's desk by July 4 after senators make changes to the House bill. 'I think we're on track — I hope, at least — to be able to produce something that we can pass through the Senate, send back to the House, have them pass and put on the President's desk by the Fourth of July,' Thune told CNN. He added his chamber would amend the House bill, but said 'it will have to be tracked fairly closely, obviously, with the House bill,' citing House Republicans' 'fragile majority' and how they had to strike a 'delicate balance' in the House GOP conference to adopt the package last month. However, Thune did acknowledge that 'there are some things that senators want added to the bill, or things that we would do slightly differently,' than the House. Pressed on whether he would consider overruling the parliamentarian if she objects to anything in the package, which must abide by strict budget rules, Thune insisted that 'we're not going there.' Thune also indicated that the Senate could move on sanctions against Russia before July 4, but noted that they are working with the Trump administration on timing so as not to disrupt negotiations. The resolution, led by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, currently has over 80 co-sponsors in the Senate.
