Illinois lawmakers pass bill that would protect police K9s
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WTVO) — The Illinois Senate passed a bill that would ensure long-term veterinary care for retired K9s.
Illinois State Police are expected to create the Police K9 Care Fund, which would award grants to handlers.
The grants would provide up to $1,500 in veterinary care reimbursements.
'These dogs serve bravely alongside our officers and deserve dignity, respect and care after their service ends,' said State Senator Napoleon Harris III (D-Harvey). 'This legislation makes sure we honor their loyalty with the same commitment they've shown to us.'
Harris acknowledged how important K9s are for law enforcement.
'We ask a lot of K9s in the line of duty, and caring for them in retirement is the least we can do,' Harris continued.
The bill now heads to Governor Pritzker's desk to be signed into law.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Have Trump tariffs guaranteed a stock walloping recession?
You can catch Opening Bid on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Nothing lasts forever. And that old adage apparently applies to the once untouchable US credit rating. The US has lost its last triple-A credit rating, thanks to Moody's. Moody's downgraded the US credit rating, blaming large fiscal deficits and rising interest costs. To longtime watchers of the country's fiscal position, the move by Moody's comes as no surprise. Deficits have ballooned amid decades of government overspending. The issue stands to worsen in coming years as baby boomers retire and put pressure on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. While somewhat symbolic at this point, the action of Moody's could have negative consequences for the US Treasury market as it calls into question the ability of the country to repay its debts at some point in the future. Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi welcomes to the Opening Bid mic Brookings Institute vice president and director of economic studies Ben Harris. Harris is one of those aforementioned longtime watchers of the US government debt position. He was also a central player in the presidency of Joe Biden in terms of crafting detailed economic plans for the country. What does Harris think about the Trump administration's handling of the economy? Sozzi and Harris discuss! Welcome to a new episode of the Opening bid podcast. I'm Yahoo Finance executive editor Brian Sai. Like I always say, this is the podcast that will make you a smarter investor, period. And of course, opening bids sponsored by our friends at Vanguard, a great featured guest for this episode, psyched to talk to Ben Harris, uh, vice president and director of Economic studies at the Brookings Ben, so great to see you here, and I should know before we get this going here, uh, the New York Times in 2020 dubbed you quote, the quiet architect of Biden's plan to rescue the economy. So you're coming in here hot, there's a lot to talk about, but before we get into, you know, your thoughts on the economy, what are yourYou know, there's a lot going on with uh the current administration, Trump administration, with tariffs, um, uh, various other trade policies, tax bill, level set from your perspective. What's your sense? Let's start on the tariff front. What's your perspective on what the administration is doing in terms of trade here? So I think what the administration is doing in terms of trade is experimenting. It's seeing how far it can push the US economy. It's seeing how far it can push US consumers and it's seeing how far it can push our trading partners. I don't think it really came in with a hard and fast plan, and this was true in the first Trump administration as well, although the path it has taken is very different. The second time know, when I sort of want to scope the magnitude of the various tariffs, I think the right way to do it is to think about the average tariff charged on US imports. For most of the past 20 years or so, it was around 1.5%. The first Trump administration came in, bumped it up to around 3% through those targeted trade initiatives in the name of national security. And then so it came in with the average tariff rate around 3% because the Biden administration preserved that. And then it went up into like the high 20s. And that was an never seen this before in the history of our country. And then I think I realized it went too far, and then backed off all the tariffs other than China and then eventually backed off the tar, the China tariff somewhat. So right now, I think it's basically experimenting with how far it can go on tariffs. But the experiment hasn't been working well. There's a lot of concerns around inflation. There's a lot of concerns around retaliation. There's a lot of concerns around corporate investment in the US. We can, we can unpack this if you like, but it's clear the Trump administration realized it went too far. Now, as someone that was in the trenches, uh with with President former President Biden, crafting various economic policies, how different is this administration's approach on trade compared to what your teams are working on? Oh, it couldn't have been more different. I mean, the Biden administration on trade effectively adopted the first Trump administration's approach on trade. It maintained a lot of the tariffs that were put in place, um, and didn't change many. Now in terms of things like, um,sanctions policy and uh what's known as economic statecraft. So basically trying to achieve foreign policy aims through economic measures. I think the Biden administration was more aggressive, but in terms of broad-based tariffs, I mean that was not something that the Biden administration wanted to do, know, I think that this the Trump administration has beenFairly aggressive in terms of its authority and right now you're seeing questions of whether or not it can actually levy broad-based tariffs like it has done working its way through the courts. We still don't know if it's legal or not. So it's not just a question of economic policy, but also legal policy. I just don't think the Biden administration was willing, was willing to push on those legal constraints as much as this Trump administration has. So night and day in terms of tariffpolicy. You mentioned at the top and the Trump administration is experimenting here on trade. Do you think it will be an experiment?That will go bad. And I bring this up, well really for a lot of different reasons, but I'm thinking about what Jamie Dimon, of course, JP Morgan's CEOs just said. He said, quote, the recent tariff of impact has yet to been been felt. What, what will the impact be? Oh, this experiment is gonna end very poorly.I mean, or, or the economics profession just should just pack its bags and go home. Because, I mean, we have spent, we economists have spent decades warning against this. We saw this in the 1930s with Smoot Hawley when there was another experiment and it led to a much worse recession than we needed in the the 1920s and 1930s than was necessary. But you've already seen it go badly. I mean, for a bunch of different reasons. So start talking about the negative effects of you get this price boost in inflation. The rule of thumb is, uh, every 1% point increase in the average tariff rate, you get a 0.1% increase in core PC inflation. So right now when we saw the average tariff rate go from around 3% up to uh around uh 16%, you're talking about a 1.3% this point increase in consumers will be paying more. That's a big problem. Second, uh, and we saw this with China, you get these retaliatory tariffs. And in the case of China, it wasn't just retaliatory tariffs, but also lessen access to critical minerals, which is just decimating for certain US industries. And so export market shrink, that's bad for US businesses is also weighed really heavily on consumer sentiment. Right now, surveys of consumer sentiment show we'reAround sort of this recession era like view on the economy, um, it's definitely caused a lot of concern among, among households and spending. um and you lead to this sort of general sense of uncertainty. I think business leaders, I spent a lot of time talking to business leaders, but it also shows up in surveys are basically just standing still in the face of this fantastic uncertainty. So as you see things likeM&A activity is way down. Corporate investment outside the front ring of tariffs is way down. And so overall, this is just a really harmful experiment and it's just unnecessary. It's a little unclear what the end goal is. Is the end goal to push manufacturing back in the United States? If that's the case, there areA lot less problematic ways to do it. You could kind of double down on the Biden administration approach where they use carrots and not sticks, you know, all these subsidies, particularly in the energy sector. But the end goal is kind of unclear. And so that makes it difficult to assess this tariff policy because we don't really know why it's being put in place in the first place. I knew I was talking to you, uh, and a week ago I was talking to the CFO of a Fortune 500 company, didn't want to be named, and I get it, but they said if tariffs go China, go back to 145%, this country will be seeing close to uh in a range of about 20% to 30% inflation. And I made a note because at the time, like, holy cow, I mean, I've never seen anything like that, but from an economist standpoint, is that what we would be looking at here? Because there's no guarantee these 30% tariffs on China stay in place and they don't go back up. Yeah, so it's really different if we're gonna have these high tariffs on one country, even if it's a country that's a massive trading power like China, then if we have them across the board on all countries. And the reason why you saw markets freak out on liberation Day was because there was no release valve. And so for coming in with 30% China, like we have right now. A lot of that impact gets dissipated through what some people call a bank shot. So basically China taking its goods, shipping it to countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, a lot in Southeast Asia. You know, those countries might slap.I don't know, a new logo on the good, just these really incremental changes, and then it can can come into the US at much lower tariff rates. If you're gonna have 50% tariffs on Vietnam and similar tariffs on Cambodia and Laos, there's no release so what we have now is in spirit, but not in scope, a very similar approach to what we saw in the first Trump administration, which are China focused tariffs. And there is this release valve, so the economic impact won't be quite as strong as as we saw in Liberation Day. If we go back to Liberation Day tariffs, a recession is virtually that's why you saw the S&P and other metrics just fall so so quickly. Um, but if we're just focused on China, it means a higher tax rate for consumers, it means, you know, less opportunities for exporting for consumers, um, sorry, less opities for exporting for US uh US businesses, but it isn't nearly as harmful as we saw in in inApril. Is there, if tariffs stay at the levels they are now, is that recession still guaranteed? I mean, uh, you, you're gonna see slower economic activity. Consumers will have less money. There's been a lot of different estimates of the, you know, per household cost of the tariffs. It's probably around a few $1000 for a middle class family that will slow consumption that will push us closer towards stagflation because not only are you getting this slowdown in consumption, but you're also getting the higher prices that are attributed to tariffs, I don't think it's a guaranteed recession, and you see this with the forecasters. A lot of the forecasters were saying post liberation Day, 50%, 60, 70% chance of recession. I think that's receded to around 30 to 40% now, so still precarious but not a guaranteed recession. What is that? What is that first real economic reportban whereYou say, wow, tariffs are really starting to hurt the economy, because right now they, you know, you get a weak consumer sentiment report, it hasn't really shown up in CPI. I would guess agree with Jamie Dimon, investors are perhaps being a little complacent on what's going on here with tariffs. Like, what's the one or two reports that you're, you're gonna be like, wow, OK, inflation is here, and I guess I should have taken this seriously a couple weeks ago. Yeah, that's, that's a great question. So the standard answer would have been, well, we're going to look at the unemployment report, uh, we're gonna see if this starts showing up in labor markets. Our company is laying off workers, you know, then the household would go ahead and start spending less, um, and then we'd also watch consumption closely. This time around, I'm watching business investment much more closely than I usually would if businesses are just failing to invest, that also means they're not gonna want to hire. Uh, that means they'll be very reluctant to raise wages. And so this could be kind of a unique recession that is kicked off by lack of business investment that leads to less consumption, not the other way around. So I'm watching the the investment numbers really closely in the last GDP report when the economy contracted by 0.3%.Um, you did see some evidence of front running on business investment. So businesses want to get ahead of the, the tariffs, so they're purchasing equipment and other things that might get tariffs in advance. I'm really curious to see the next GDP report to see if we're going to see that depressed business investment, because for me that's kind of the thing that kicks off this recession if one's going to happen. And Ben, you know, I, I would love to get your thoughts on this. What has raised, I guess, alarm bells for know, I talked to Walmart CFO right after their earnings, uh, a couple of days ago. So, Brian, we're gonna raise prices, and in some cases might be up double digits. Uh, and now this all might happen starting at the end of May. Uh, what is the impact, I guess, to the low income consumer if the world's largest retailers hiking prices double digits because of tariffs? Yeah, so someone might think I might say, oh, higher prices are the worst outcome and and that that's far from the worst outcome. The worst outcome for the consumer are shortages. And so we've got this economist at Brookings named uh Marta Wasinta, and she does a lot of work on the pharmaceutical industry and what she has pointed out is if we're talking about branded drugs, you might see these price increases, but there's a high enough uh profit margin built in there where there wouldn't be the real concern for tariffs on pharmaceuticals, and this is just one example, are that for the generics, the margins are so low that you might start seeing shortages in in in medicine. I mean, that is, that's a worst case scenario as you can get, uh, and every consumer, um, you know, also either has a worker in their household or, you know, maybe depends on on a worker in some way or so if these tariffs start leading to layoffs, uh, we've been very fortunate in the past 5 or 6 years. We've had very low unemployment coming out of the recession or maybe the past 3 or 4 years. Um, you know, if you see this sort of bleeding into the labor market, that's awful news for consumers as well. All right, hanging with us, uh, Ben, we're gonna go off for a quick break. We'll be back, we'll be right back on opening right. Welcome back to Opening bid sponsored by our friends over at Vanguard, having a great chat here with Ben Harris, VP and director of Economic studies at the Brookings Institution. And Ben, I know I'm gonna get these comments out there on social media, so I'll put this to you now. Is there anything that you like that the Trump administration is doing on the economy? To be fair, I mean, they are moving very quick, uh, a lot of folks don't agree with what they're doing on tariffs. I mean, you're painting a scenario where the economy could get really hit, but is there something in there, you said, OK, you know what, maybe that's all right. Yeah, so let me give you 3 things, because I don't want to come off like a partisan hack here. And uh the first thing that I think that they're doing right, and it manifested in a really ugly way was that they're taking a hard look at government is a lot of inefficiency in the federal government. Now, the right way to go about it would have been to lean into the auditing function. We've got a massive government accountability office. There are there are inspector generals that virtually every agency, uh, Congress should have played a big role in deciding what spending was efficient and what wasn't. So I'm a fan of the Doge effort. They just leaned itto billionaire Alma. They they leaned it to Elon. Let Elon do it. He's fine. He donated a lot of money. Yeah, I mean, like Elon, Elon probably understands the automotive market. He does not understand government service. And so while I think that Doge was a tragedy, I think that the Trump administration rightly identified government waste is something which we should take second thing that I think it's done well is, and we haven't even started talking about the reconciliation bill yet, which is going to be massive going forward for the rest of the year, was that it did put in place a bunch of incentives in the reconciliation package for the corporate sector to start investing now. And it needs that to offset the negative impacts of its uh tariff policies. So the fact that you can now write off investment and investment in uh in structures faster than you could before is good news for the US economy. So I guess cheers for the Trump administration for putting those provisions in. Also on trade policy, I thought that in the first Trump administration, they did a good job of identifying a general strategy for addressing some of the problems in the trading relationship we have with other countries, namely these agency level investigations that take place either atCommerce or US Trade Representative's office that looks at possible trade violations by other countries and then puts in place a reasonable reaction to that trade, uh, you know, misdeed by our partners. And so it took the right approach, the first administration, I think eventually it's going to get back to that because it's going to realize how problematic the tariffs were, but it's going to take a long time to get there. So that was more sort of complimenting the first Trump but you know, there's, there's a lot of problematic things that are going on, including a particular reconciliation bill. I'm happy to talk about that if you like. Well, I want to get to the tax bill or the big beautiful tax bill, as President Trump calls it. I look at some numbers that the Joint Committee on Taxation put out. This, the, the extending the tax cuts alone could cost or cost 3.7%.$1 trillion and I think back to Moody's now cutting the US credit rating. I think back to what uh Ray Dalio, Ray Dalio told me earlier in the year on, you know, his concern about the outlook for treasury as we pile on more debt. Like, Ben, where is this day of reckoning, you know, we, you, you and I, I think are around the same edge. We've been hearing it for the past 20 years or so, is this the moment, is this tax bill create that moment, the day of reckoning for treasuries and the economy and trust in our in our credit? Yeah, I, I don't know if we're gonna have a day of reckoning or a decade of reckoning. And so I don't know if it's gonna happen slowly or if it's gonna happen quickly. It seemed, if you're looking back over the past month that there were times when it might happen quickly, you saw these sort of overnight spikes in the tenure, and I think that what we've done.I mean, I could talk for three hours about problems with our debt markets, but what we've done is we've surrendered to a certain extent control over the US economy to foreign central banks and foreign investors. So we've got this $30 trillion debt market for US Treasury, about a third of that, so $10 trillion are held by foreigners, about half of that are held by foreign investors, uh, official foreign investors like central banks. What we're starting to see hints capital flight from the US. Now, mostly that's been happening in government debt markets. It's been happening to a lesser extent in equities, but basically it's not just that foreign consumers are losing a taste for US goods. I'm less concerned about that. What I'm really concerned about is that foreign investors don't want to put money in the US anymore. What that means is that if we have to rely on American investors to service our that means we're going to have to have a higher interest rate. And so if you start seeing that interest rate creep up towards 5% on the 10 year or even 6% or higher, that means we're crowding out all this other productive investment. People are putting money in treasuries instead of putting money in corporate investment instead of putting money in the stock and that's just awful news for the US over time. And so there's this sort of slow drag on the US economy, which is virtually guaranteed if we're going to take on $4 trillion.06 trillion dollars in debt like we're about to do with this reconciliation package. But the real threat, the real threat is that this could spark some sort offiscal crisis and that could happen if we get to a debt ceiling where you start seeing default on Treasury securities that could happen if we lose, if investors lose faith in the independence of the Fed. That could happen if you see really stark shifts from foreign central banks away from treasuries, like some sort of official proclamation that we're not going to buy US Treasuries anymore. And then other investors don't want to hold them because the market for selling those treasuries goes down. So the real concern is thatThis happens in a matter of weeks rather than in a matter of years, and we get this blow up in the, you know, in the financial markets. Ben, you mentioned, uh, default risk real quick. What's the probability that this country defaults on its debt? Is it way less than 25% or is it crept up higher after this Moody's downgrade? I mean, the stock market took all this in stride, but from my perspective, I, when Moody's downgrades your credit rating, even though it's to be expected, uh, that's a red flag. That's a red flag. It'sYou know, the way that I think about it is that there's a lot of risk in investing in treasuries, but default for US Treasury has not been one of those risks. So investors probability default is being zero. If you buy a US Treasury, there might be inflation risks, there might be currency risks. There are other types of risks, but you're going to get paid on that asset. If we go from a 100% chance of getting paid on your treasury to 99.8% chance of getting paid on Treasury, that is a massive shift. This is no longer a risk-free asset. This is a risky asset in terms of default risk. And umYou know, that just, that just makes our whole fiscal outlook that much worse. We have to pay more for our debt, which then kind of exacerbates our, our debt imbalance. Um, so, you know, you're finally starting to see more and more attention getting paid to this. It has implications for credit card rates as implications for mortgage rates. Um, it is, I think, probably the biggest threat to the US economy in terms of actual the only reason we would default is if there was a political misstep. I mean, we are the richest country on earth and there are plenty of assets to pay the coupon payments and the principal on US debt. It would have to be a deliberate decision by policymakers to default on our debt, and I cannot imagine a worse decision than that one. Leslie, Ben, we always ask our guests in the last few minutes of the podcast for their hot take. And my question for you is this on, on this front, you worked on a lot of different things inside the Biden administration on the economy. What was the one thing that surprised you about the US economy as you crafted a lot of plans and talked to a lot of leaders? Well, that's, that's a great question. Uh, it was a, I mean it was a wild time. I, I got sworn in hours after President Biden was sworn in virtually on a screen just like this. Um, in terms of what surprised me, I think that we were all surprised by the persistence of inflation. Now, there's a debate in economics as far as what caused that inflation.I think any sort of credible analysis has to point to the bulk of that rise in inflation being to this like once in a 100 year supply shock where people were literally not leaving their houses, ships weren't on the water, factories were, weren't running, and that run up in inflation wasLargely but not exclusively attributed to supply shocks. But that surprised me. You know, I think that I wouldn't have been surprised by 34, maybe even 5% inflation. But the fact that we're getting up to 7, 8%, sometimes even higher for the CPI, you know, that, that really surprised me. And, and I think we probably would have recommended different things if I knew that was coming. Um, but, you know, certainly don't expect a once in a 100 year spike in inflation. We should note, uh, myself nor Ben had anything to do with egg price inflation. We'll leave it there. How to get that, how to get that in. Ben, how to get it in? Because I'm gonna get it on X. Uh, Ben Harris, uh, VP and director of Economic studies at the Brookings Institution, uh, big fan of your work. Uh, please do. Let's, uh, let's keep in touch right, that's it for the latest episode of Opening bid. Continue to hit us with all of those likes and thumbs up on all the podcast platforms. Wait, the thumbs up on YouTube, thumbs up on YouTube, and of course, uh opening bids sponsored by our friends at Vanguard. Talk to you soon. For full episodes of Opening Bid, listen on your favorite podcast platform or watch on our website. Yahoo Finance's Opening Bid is produced by Langston Sessoms Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas Passes First-in-Nation Law Defining Sexual Consent To Protect Assault Victims
(The Center Square) – Several bills strengthening protections for sex crime victims and penalties for perpetrators nearly unanimously passed the legislature and are headed to the governor for his signature. HB 3073, filed by state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, amends the state penal code addressing sexual assault to explicitly define consensual sex. It was carried in the Senate by Sen. Angela Paxton, R-McKinney. It passed the House earlier this month, passed the Senate this week with amended text, and passed the House nearly unanimously again on Friday with amended changes. It heads to the governor's desk. Once the governor signs it, Texas will be the first state in the U.S. to have an explicit legal definition of sexual consent. In addition to other provisions, stipulates that sexual assault occurs without the consent of the other person when 'the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to resist;' when the other person 'has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unaware that the sexual assault is occurring;' or 'is intoxicated or impaired by any substance to the extent that the other person is incapable of consenting.' The bill is named after activist Summer Willis, founder of Strength Through Strides. Willis ran 29 marathons in one year to meet and uplift sexual assault survivors. In February, she crawled the Austin half-marathon and state lawmakers joined her at the finish line. 'I crawled the Austin half marathon in February for a world record attempt to begin raising awareness about the bill, that's when it was named after me by the politicians who joined to cross the finish line with me,' she said. 'Our bill got voted out on the final day, in the final hour. I'm excited about our story of hope and fight for survivors.' Another bill heading to Abbott's desk is SB 835, filed by Paxton, the companion bill to HB 748, filed by state Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano. Known as Trey's Law, it amends state law to prevent perpetrators or institutions involved with child sexual abuse from creating and engaging the victim in nondisclosure agreements (NDA) as a part of a lawsuit settlement. It's named after Trey Carlock, who was sexually abused by a former camp counselor in Branson, Missouri, and later took his own life. Carlock 'experienced severe mental health problems after enduring years of sexual abuse and was coerced into signing an NDA, are further prohibited from speaking out about their abuse or discovery in a settled case,' the bill analysis states. The federal Speak Out Act of 2022 prohibits the use of NDAs for adult cases of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. Trey's Law ensures that child sex abuse survivors are no longer silenced by NDAs, Leach argues. Passage in Texas marks 'a major victory for victims and survivors of sexual abuse' and delivers 'a blow to their perpetrators hiding in the shadows,' Leach said. 'Texas it's taking a long overdue stand against the cover up of sexual abuse and the silencing of victims. For too long, powerful institutions have escaped public accountability' while survivors and their families were left to suffer in silence, he added. 'This law ends that practice and changes the public policy of the state forever. In doing so, we have sent a clear message: if you abuse a fellow Texan or if you harbor or assist an abuser at the expense of the victim, you will be held to account.' SB 1621, filed by state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, is also heading to Abbott's desk. It was filed to bring Texas' child pornography statutes up to date to address deepfake technology and artificial intelligence being used to create sexually explicit visual material of a person or a likeness of a person, including children, Huffman's bill analysis states. State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo, carried the bill in the House. It passed unanimously in the House and Senate. It amends state penal code by creating a new offense for computer generated child pornography, including material containing a visual depiction of a computer-generated child engaging in sexual conduct. Offenses range between first- and third-degree felonies. Penalties for possessing child pornography carry a sentence of between 25 years and life in prison; penalties for promoting child pornography carry a minimum sentence of 15 years; penalties for promoting computer-generated child porn carry a minimum sentence of 10 years, all depending on a range of factors, according to the bill language.
Politico
36 minutes ago
- Politico
USDA faces billions in cuts
Presented by Bayer With help from Jordan Wolman QUICK FIX — The Trump administration is looking to cut nearly $7 billion from agriculture funding for fiscal 2026. — The Senate is back in Washington and gearing up for a fight over reconciliation cuts to SNAP spending. — The Energy Department has expanded the range of companies that can claim federal clean fuel production tax credits, a win for biofuels proponents and producers. IT'S MONDAY, JUNE 2. Welcome to Morning Agriculture. I'm your host Grace Yarrow, missing my local Joanns. Send tips and your preferred craft suppliers to gyarrow@ And don't forget to follow us at @Morning_Ag. Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. ICYMI: The Conversation kicked off with Dr. Oz In the premiere episode of The Conversation, Dasha Burns sat down with Dr. Mehmet Oz — now leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — for a candid talk on drug prices, potential Medicaid cuts and why he's getting early morning calls from President Donald Trump. Plus, POLITICO's Jonathan Martin dished on the Ohio governor's race (featuring Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy and former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel), and Kyle Cheney unpacked Trump's legal battle over 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Watch the full episode on YouTube. And don't miss a moment — subscribe now on Apple Podcasts or Spotify to get new episodes when they drop. Driving the day FACING DOWN USDA CUTS: The Trump administration is requesting $23 billion for USDA for fiscal 2026, a cut of nearly $7 billion from the current year, according to budget documents released late Friday. The proposal follows President Donald Trump's release earlier this month of his 'skinny budget,' which outlined proposals for billions of dollars in cuts to food, forest and conservation programs and increased funding for the 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative. This more detailed release signals the spending priorities of the White House, which may not be fully embraced by Congress. The details: If Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and the Trump administration get their way, USDA would deeply reduce nearly all of the department's major initiatives, from the Risk Management Agency to Rural Development to the Forest Service to the Office of Civil Rights. The budget request seeks to eliminate programs like the Source Water Protection Program, Dairy Business Innovation initiatives, direct loans for rural single-family housing, conservation technical assistance and the Rural Business-Cooperative Service. The request aims to reduce the Farm Service Agency, which supports farm loans, conservation and disaster assistance, by $372 million. It would shrink the Natural Resources Conservation Service from $916 million to $112 million. The Forest Service would decrease from $16.8 billion last year to $4 billion, as Rollins looks to transfer wildland fire management appropriations to Interior to create a new U.S. Wildland Fire Service. USDA's research arm would also take a budget hit. And more: The sweeping cuts would extend to other key areas. The budget request calls for cutting its SNAP funding allocation by more than half, along with child nutrition programs, as GOP lawmakers are looking to slash SNAP spending by up to $300 billion. And the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children would receive nearly $300 million less than it did last year. Read more on the budget plans from our Jordan Wolman here. Happening next: The House Appropriations Ag subcommittee will meet on Thursday morning to mark up its Ag-FDA funding bill. The full House Appropriations committee will then consider the bill the following week. On The Hill SENATE'S SNAP FIGHT LOOMS: Congress is back this week, and the Senate is gearing up for a tough fight on agriculture and nutrition policy. Senate Republicans are already looking at a 'do-over' of the bill, or taking out some provisions of the reconciliation package House Republicans passed before last week's recess, to ensure it can pass the chamber's parliamentary guidelines. Some conflicts: Controversial comments that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) made in defense of the GOP bill during a town hall on Friday continued to reverberate on Sunday talk shows. One audience member, during a discussion of Medicaid and SNAP spending cuts, shouted at the senator: 'People are going to die.' 'Well, we all are going to die,' Ernst responded. (She's since posted a sarcastic apology video.) Sunday best: OMB Director Russ Vought defended Ernst's comments and Republicans' megabill during an interview on CNN's 'State of the Union' Sunday. He called worries like those from Ernst's constituents 'totally ridiculous,' arguing that it's 'very important to institute' work requirements for programs like Medicaid and SNAP. Meanwhile, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), a member of the Senate AG Committee, bashed the plans on NBC's 'Meet The Press.' 'This is an unfunded mandate at a time when Donald Trump's tariff tax is literally raising the cost of groceries,' Warnock said Sunday. MAHA CONFLICT: Agriculture lobbying groups and ag policy leaders on Capitol Hill are continuing to fight a Make America Healthy Again assessment as the White House's MAHA Commission gears up to release a full policy recommendation this summer, especially in light of errors found in the report's citations. One GOP Hill aide, granted anonymity to discuss the fallout from the report, called HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a 'Democrat who profited handsomely off junk science.' 'While his report and his rhetoric are not new, it is astonishing the president and some aides continue to support him,' the aide added. ICYMI: Calley Means, a key architect of the Trump administration's MAHA goals, pushed back on ag groups' complaints that they weren't listened to in the drafting of the MAHA Commission's initial assessment. He also insisted that the commission's policy work will not impact farmers. 'There is ZERO plan - and in fact it would be insane - to do anything rash to hurt the American farmer,' Means wrote on X in response to MA's Monday edition last week. AROUND THE AGENCIES BIOFUELS NEWS: The Energy Department on Friday expanded the range of companies and producers that can claim the clean fuel production tax credit under Democrats' climate law. It's a win for biofuels proponents in the agriculture world on a tax incentive that was the subject of intense debate during the Biden administration, our Kelsey Tamborrino writes for Pros. The Trump administration announced it was updating the modeling tool used to determine eligibility to claim the credit, which it said would account for new feedstocks and methods of production like ethanol from corn wet-milling and natural gas from coal mine methane. Guidance surrounding how to claim the clean fuels tax credit, created under the Inflation Reduction Act, was intensely debated as former President Joe Biden's administration grappled with pressures from environmental and ag advocates. The Biden administration ultimately proposed guidance for the credit in its final weeks, but left key decisions for the next administration. The reconciliation bill passed by House Republicans would dismantle key elements of the climate law's tax incentives, but would update and extend the clean fuel production tax credit that is set to expire at the end of 2027. Row Crops — USDA is sending more than 150 firefighters and support personnel to help with the response to fast-moving wildfires across Canada, the department announced Friday. — The Senate Agriculture Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday on the nomination of Michael Boren to be Agriculture undersecretary for natural resources and environment. Boren is facing new scrutiny from the Forest Service, this time for diversion of a geothermal stream to a home on his Idaho ranch, as Marc Heller writes for POLITICO's E&E News. — ICYMI: A group of retired generals and admirals, known as Mission: Readiness, sent a letter to Congress opposing cuts to SNAP, arguing that the proposed House budget would hurt the nation's military readiness. THAT'S ALL FOR MA! Drop us a line and send us your agriculture job announcements or events: gyarrow@ marciabrown@ jwolman@ sbenson@ rdugyala@ and gmott@
