Senate Gun, Silencer Provisions Blocked From Trump Tax Bill
By and Erik Wasson
Updated on
Save
Senate Republicans' effort to use President Donald Trump's massive tax bill to eliminate regulations on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and silencers has hit a roadblock with the chamber's rules-keeper.
The Senate parliamentarian decided the policy provisions violate the fast-track budget rules Republicans are using to avoid a filibuster and pass Trump's legislative agenda with only GOP support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
33 minutes ago
- Axios
What Pritzker's running mate pick says about his national plans
Gov. JB Pritzker made his reelection bid official on Thursday, but stopped short of introducing a new running mate now that current Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton is running for U.S. Senate. Why it matters: With rumors swirling that Pritzker could run for president in 2028, his new running mate could be next in line to ascend to the governor's mansion. What they're saying:"I wanted to set a standard for my successors that if you desire to hold this office, you must be first in line to sing our state's praises and last to belabor her shortcomings," Pritzker said Thursday. I want it to be the expectation and not the exception that if you want to be Governor of Illinois, well then you better love her like she deserves." Context: If Pritzker won reelection in 2026, it would not prohibit him from running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028. He could hold onto the governor's seat while running for the White House, or he could step aside and give the job to the lieutenant governor. State election law says the lieutenant governor would take over as governor until the next election cycle. Flashback: It's only been since 2014 that the candidates for governor and the lieutenant governor have run together. Before that, the elected offices were split on the ballot. Zoom in: Since Democrats have a slew of statewide officeholders, the list is long on possible replacements for Stratton. Illinois Treasurer Mike Frerichs, Comptroller Susana Mendoza and Attorney General Kwame Raoul have all won statewide elections and could be big draws for a Pritzker ticket. Yes, but: If they ran for lieutenant governor, they could not run for reelection for their respective offices, which are all on the ballot in 2026. This could create an opportunity for the Illinois GOP to swoop in and win a statewide office, which they currently do not hold. The intrigue: It's not just the statewide offices factoring into who might be interested for the state's No. 2 job. The Chicago mayoral race takes place in early 2027, and Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias is rumored to be kicking the tires on a potential run. Between the lines: Pritzker could also go with a lesser-known Democrat as his running mate, much like he did by choosing Stratton in 2018, who was a fresh state representative from Chicago. Current Deputy Gov. Andy Manar and former Deputy Gov. Christian Mitchell are two possible names. Also, Chicago City Clerk Anna Valencia, who ran unsuccessfully for Secretary of State in 2022. The bottom line: Pritzker's reelection campaign has started, but the domino effect for Illinois Democrats could shuffle names on the 2026 ballot.
Fast Company
34 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Supreme Court backs Trump on birthright citizenship injunctions. Here's what that means:
The Supreme Court ended its term on Friday with a major decision in the closely watched birthright citizenship case, that is likely to have a profound impact on whether the lower courts can pause or halt President Donald Trump's executive orders—which many legal experts say constitute an overreach of presidential power. What happened? Ruling along ideological lines 6–3, the court's conservative majority decided to curb injunctions from the lower courts that temporarily paused President Donald Trump's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship via Executive Order 14160, which aims to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally, on temporary visas, or not 'lawful permanent residents' at the time of the child's birth. However, that right is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' To be clear, the Supreme Court justices did not rule on the merits, or constitutionality, of ending birthright citizenship. The Trump administration didn't ask the court to rule on the issue itself, and instead asked the high court to rule on whether federal judges have the power to issue injunctions that would block Trump's order nationwide, while litigation continues. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by federal judges, effectively sending back the rulings to lower courts. For the 28 states that have not challenged the birthright executive order in court, automatic citizenship could end for children born in the U.S. whose parents are undocumented immigrants, and some temporary residents and visitors, according to the New York Times. The court also stopped his executive order from taking effect for 30 days. Friday's ruling is a significant victory for Trump, and a major blow to his opponents who have been trying to limit his executive orders. Trump calls ruling 'monumental victory' On Friday, speaking at the White House, Trump called the decision a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.' That's the opposite of what Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, which argued ' the Court's decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival. Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a 'solemn mockery' of our Constitution.' And added, 'The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.' In a separate dissent, Jackson called the majority decision an ' existential threat to the rule of law.' In response, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority decision pushed back, and said 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' Trump first pledged to end birthright as early as 2015, and again in 2018, before issuing an executive order on the issue in January. Trump has instituted a crackdown on immigration since taking office that has lead to some immigrants, green card holders, foreigners, and even American citizens being detained by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Administration briefing doesn't assuage House Democrats' fears of Iran nuclear capabilities
A House briefing from Trump administration officials on last weekend's strikes against Iranian nuclear sites has done little to mollify the concerns of Democrats, who say they were presented little evidence that the attacks will prevent Tehran from producing nuclear weapons. Skeptical Democrats had gone into the briefing with two pressing questions: Did Iran pose an imminent threat to Americans, thereby justifying Trump's move to launch the strikes without congressional approval? And did the attacks 'obliterate' Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons, as Trump has claimed? Leaving the closed-door gathering, Democrats said they got satisfactory answers to neither. 'I would say that that particular briefing left me with more concerns and a true lack of clarity on how we are defining the mission and the success of it,' said Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the Democratic whip. Rep. Bill Foster (D-N.J.), a former nuclear physicist, said the U.S. strikes likely knocked out Iran's centrifuges and other infrastructure required to enrich uranium in the future. But there's no evidence, he said, that the attacks destroyed Iran's existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. If those are intact, he warned, Iran could still produce weapons with the strength of a Hiroshima bomb in 'a very small break-out time.' 'I was very disappointed that we learned very little about the inventory of high-enriched uranium — 60 percent enriched uranium — its whereabouts and what that meant for the breakout time to Iran's first nuclear device,' Foster said. 'The 60 percent-enriched material, while not weapons-grade, is weapons-usable. The Hiroshima device was a mixture of 50 percent and higher enriched uranium. And that worked pretty well.' 'The goal of this mission, from the start, was to secure or destroy that material,' he continued. 'That's where they're hiding the ball. And that's what we have to keep our eyes on.' Friday's House briefing came six days after Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in an effort to dismantle Tehran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. The briefing was conducted by top administration officials — including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Radcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who had also briefed Senate lawmakers a day earlier. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence who has clashed with Trump over the threat of Iran's nuclear program, did not attend either briefing. Trump has repeatedly said the mission was an unqualified success, 'obliterating' Iran's nuclear capacity and setting the program back by years. And the president's GOP allies in the Capitol echoed that message after the briefing. 'It is clear, everyone can see by the videos, that these massive ordinance penetrating bombs did the job,' said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). 'I think their key facilities have been disabled and I think Iran is now a long time away from doing what they might have done before this very successful operation.' A preliminary report from the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reached different conclusions, finding that the strikes set back Iran's nuclear program by months, rather than years. More recent statements from the CIA and Trump's head of national intelligence have disputed the DIA report, creating mixed messages from the administration about the success of the mission. Republicans are siding clearly with the latter. 'You can dismiss the low-level initial assessment, and you can rely upon what the CIA has said, because these are first-hand accounts,' Johnson said. 'The greatest evidence that we have of the effectiveness of this mission was that Iran came immediately and was willing to engage in a ceasefire agreement,' he added. 'That would have been unthinkable just a few weeks back.' Indeed, Trump said Wednesday that administration officials will meet with Iranian officials next week, when the U.S. will press Iran on ending its nuclear ambitions. At least one prominent Democrat, for his part, did air some satisfaction with the briefing: Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Rubio clarified that the objective of the mission 'was to set back or destroy Iranian nuclear capability in the service of bringing them to the table.' But whether that goal was achieved remains an open question. Himes said that even though the U.S. wants to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, it does not mean Tehran will follow suit. 'There's two questions: Did we, in fact, set back or destroy? And two, Will they come to the table?' Himes said. 'It's really too early to tell what the intentions of the Iranians are. If the intentions are to go to the negotiating table, great. 'But the intentions may also be to just go underground and produce a device.'
