Thune warns Schumer may let govt shut down as ‘struggling' Dems scramble to appease far-left
Thune (R-SD) observed that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has faced intense pressure from his base and mused that a few upcoming votes will provide more clarity about the risks of a partial shutdown.
'I think he [Schumer] probably thinks that it's beneficial to their political base, the far left of the Democrat Party, and you can kind of see what's happening up there in New York politics,' Thune told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures.'
In March, Schumer faced fierce progressive backlash after he declined to block a GOP-backed spending patch to avert a partial government shutdown.
The blowback was so pronounced that Schumer was forced to reschedule parts of his book tour as progressives demanded Democrats in Congress put up more of a fight against President Trump.
3 Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated that a few upcoming votes on appropriations bills will help determine the likelihood of a government shutdown.
Getty Images
3 Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faced progressive backlash when he moved to avert a partial government shutdown in March.
AP
Government shutdown showdowns are one of the few instances in which Democrats have leverage with the Trump administration, given that they are the minority party in both the House and the Senate.
Every new fiscal year, which starts on Oct. 1, Congress is required to fund the government via 12 appropriations bills or through a continuing resolution in order to avoid a shutdown.
Both avenues are subject to the Senate fillibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome. Republicans only have 53, which means they need cooperation from Democrats.
At the moment, Congress has funded the government via a continuing resolution, which essentially means that it is running on autopilot until the fall.
'This is a party struggling for an identity. This is a party that's completely out of step with the mainstream of this country,' Thune added.
'We're going to be waiting to see anxiously what Chuck Schumer and other leaders on the Democrat side decide to do.'
Earlier this month, Schumer railed against Republicans for advancing a rescissions package, which allows them to cancel previously approved spending without support from Democrats.
Schumer argued that such a move jeopardizes negotiations over the government shutdown showdown.
'We are doing everything we can to keep the bipartisan appropriations process going,' Schumer told reporters earlier this month. 'And they're undermining it with rescissions, with pocket rescissions, with impoundment and every other way.'
The implication from Schumer is that Democrats can't trust Republicans to stick to the terms of a bipartisan appropriations deal because they've shown a willingness to bypass them via rescissions and presidential impoundment, when Trump decides not to spend certain authorized funds.
On the Republican side, GOP leaders, particularly in the House, have long struggled to get fiscal hawks on board with either a continuing resolution or the 12 appropriations bills. There's been a strong push from the right flank for deeper cuts to spending, something that is a dealbreaker for Democrats.
3 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hasn't said what her 2028 intentions are yet.
LP Media
Schumer also has to navigate dicey progressive politics. The Democratic establishment was upended last month when Zohran Mamdani bested former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary.
The top Senate Democrat is up for reelection in 2028 and hasn't said whether or not he will run amid the threat of a challenge from 'Squad' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
'Ultimately, keeping the government funded is good for the country, and hopefully we will have bipartisan cooperation to do that,' Thune added.
'If their recent track record is any indication, they're under a tremendous amount of pressure from that far left wing of the Democrat Party to shut the government down.'
The last partial government shutdown, which lasted 35 days, took place between late 2018 and early 2019 due to a feud between Trump and Democrats over border wall funding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
7 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Meta clashes with Apple, Google over age check legislation
The biggest tech companies are warring over who's responsible for children's safety online, with billions of dollars in fines on the line as states rapidly pass conflicting laws requiring companies to verify users' ages. The struggle has pitted Meta Platforms Inc. and other app developers against Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, the world's largest app stores. Lobbyists for both sides are moving from state to state, working to water down or redirect the legislation to minimize their clients' risks. This year alone, at least three states — Utah, Texas and Louisiana — passed legislation requiring tech companies to authenticate users' ages, secure parental consent for anyone under 18 and ensure minors are protected from potentially harmful digital experiences. Now, lobbyists for all three companies are flooding into South Carolina and Ohio, the next possible states to consider such legislation. The debate has taken on new importance after the Supreme Court this summer ruled age verification laws are constitutional in some instances. A tech group on Wednesday petitioned the Supreme Court to block a social media age verification law in Mississippi, teeing up a highly consequential decision in the next few weeks. Child advocates say holding tech companies responsible for verifying the ages of their users is key to creating a safer online experience for minors. Parents and advocates have alleged the social media platforms funnel children into unsafe and toxic online spaces, exposing young people to harmful content about self harm, eating disorders, drug abuse and more. Meta supporters argue the app stores should be responsible for figuring out whether minors are accessing inappropriate content, comparing the app store to a liquor store that checks patrons' IDs. Apple and Google, meanwhile, argue age verification laws violate children's privacy and argue the individual apps are better-positioned to do age checks. Apple said it's more accurate to describe the app store as a mall and Meta as the liquor store. The three new state laws put the responsibility on app stores, signaling Meta's arguments are gaining traction. The company lobbied in support of the Utah and Louisiana laws putting the onus on Apple and Google for tracking their users' ages. Similar Meta-backed proposals have been introduced in 20 states. Federal legislation proposed by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah would hold the app stores accountable for verifying users' ages. Still, Meta's track record in its state campaigns is mixed. At least eight states have passed laws since 2024 forcing social media platforms to verify users' ages and protect minors online. Apple and Google have mobilized dozens of lobbyists across those states to argue that Meta is shirking responsibility for protecting children. 'We see the legislation being pushed by Meta as an effort to offload their own responsibilities to keep kids safe,' said Google spokesperson Danielle Cohen. 'These proposals introduce new risks to the privacy of minors, without actually addressing the harms that are inspiring lawmakers to act.' Meta spokesperson Rachel Holland countered that the company is supporting the approach favored by parents who want to keep their children safe online. 'Parents want a one-stop-shop to oversee their teen's online lives and 80% of American parents and bipartisan lawmakers across 20 states and the federal government agree that app stores are best positioned to provide this,' Holland said. As the regulation patchwork continues to take shape, the companies have each taken voluntary steps to protect children online. Meta has implemented new protections to restrict teens from accessing 'sensitive' content, like posts related to suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Apple created 'Child Accounts,' which give parents more control over their children's' online activity. At Apple, spokesperson Peter Ajemian said it 'soon will release our new age assurance feature that empowers parents to share their child's age range with apps without disclosing sensitive information.' As the lobbying battle over age verification heats up, influential big tech groups are splintering and new ones emerging. Meta last year left Chamber of Progress, a liberal-leaning tech group that counts Apple and Google as members. Since then, the chamber, which is led by a former Google lobbyist and brands itself as the Democratic-aligned voice for the tech industry, has grown more aggressive in its advocacy against all age verification bills. 'I understand the temptation within a company to try to redirect policymakers towards the company's rivals, but ultimately most legislators don't want to intervene in a squabble between big tech giants,' said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. Meta tried unsuccessfully to convince another major tech trade group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, to stop working against bills Meta supports, two people familiar with the dynamics said. Meta, a CCIA member, acknowledged it doesn't always agree with the association. Meta is also still a member of NetChoice, which opposes all age verification laws no matter who's responsible. The group currently has 10 active lawsuits on the matter, including battling some of Meta's preferred laws. The disagreements have prompted some of the companies to form entirely new lobbying outfits. Meta in April teamed up with Spotify Technology SA and Match Group Inc. to launch a coalition aimed at taking on Apple and Google, including over the issue of age verification. Meta is also helping to fund the Digital Childhood Alliance, a coalition of conservative groups leading efforts to pass app-store age verification, according to three people familiar with the funding. Neither the Digital Childhood Alliance nor Meta responded directly to questions about whether Meta is funding the group. But Meta said it has collaborated with Digital Childhood Alliance. The group's executive director, Casey Stefanski, said it includes more than 100 organizations and child safety advocates who are pushing for more legislation that puts responsibility on the app stores. Stefanski said the Digital Childhood Alliance has met with Google 'several times' to share their concerns about the app store in recent months. The App Association, a group backed by Apple, has been running ads in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and Ohio arguing that the app store age verification bills are backed by porn websites and companies. The adult entertainment industry's main lobby said it is not pushing for the bills; pornography is mostly banned from app stores. 'This one-size fits all approach is built to solve problems social media platforms have with their systems while making our members, small tech companies and app developers, collateral damage,' said App Association spokesperson Jack Fleming. In South Carolina and Ohio, there are competing proposals placing different levels of responsibility on the app stores and developers. That could end with more stringent legislation that makes neither side happy. 'When big tech acts as a monolith, that's when things die,' said Joel Thayer, a supporter of the app store age verification bills. 'But when they start breaking up that concentration of influence, all the sudden good things start happening because the reality is, these guys are just a hair's breath away from eating each other alive.' Birnbaum writes for Bloomberg.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas Democrats meet with Newsom to stop Trump's push to 'rig' the 2026 election
Gov. Gavin Newsom stood alongside six Democrats from the Texas Legislature on Friday and joined them in accusing President Trump and Republicans of trying to "rig" elections to hold onto congressional seats next year. "They play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away," Newsom said of the nation's history. "We are not going to allow that to happen." The Texas lawmakers and the governor spoke with reporters after meeting privately at the Governor's Mansion in Sacramento to discuss a national political fight over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the midterm elections and balance of power in Congress. At the urging of President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state Legislature into a special session this week that includes a call to redistrict the Lone Star State to help Republicans pick up seats in Congress. The move is part of a gerrymandering effort pushed by Trump to prevent the GOP from losing control of the House of Representatives next year. If Democrats take the House, they could derail the president's agenda, which has so far included a crackdown on undocumented immigrants, tariffs on imports, rescinding efforts to combat climate change and undercutting state protections for the LGTBQ+ community, among other policy priorities. Newsom has threatened to mirror Trump's tactics and said he's in talks with leaders of the California Legislature to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor electing more Democrats and fewer Republicans. Texas Democrats, who said they traveled to California to meet with the governor and explain the state of play in Texas, pledged do everything in their power to push back against Trump's plan. "We're going to use every tool at our disposal in the state of Texas to confront this very illegal redistricting process that is going to be done on the backs of historic African American and Latino districts," said Texas state Rep. Rafael Anchía. Another group of Texas lawmakers are expected to meet with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker in Chicago. Read more: California Democrats may target GOP congressional districts to counter Texas Changing the maps to benefit Democrats is a massive departure from California's work over the last decade to remove political partisanship from the redistricting process. California voters in 2010 gave an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to determine the boundaries of voting districts for the U.S. House of Representatives instead of leaving that authority with the state Legislature. To redistrict before the midterms, the most legally sound option is for state lawmakers to send a constitutional amendment to voters that seeks to allow changes to the voter map outside the boundaries of California's independent redistricting process. The vote would need to happen in a special election before the June primary. Newsom has said he's also exploring a potential legal loophole that could allow the California Legislature to redraw the congressional maps themselves with a two-thirds vote. The governor's office said state law charges the redistricting commission with crafting new maps after a census, which is conducted about every 10 years. But they say the law is silent on everything that happens in between that time period. Newsom's lawyers believe it could be possible for the Legislature to redistrict congressional seats mid-decade on its own without going to the ballot. Read more: Texas Republicans aim to redraw House districts at Trump's urging, but there's a risk The governor's call to fight Trump using his own gerrymandering tactics has drawn a mixed response. Newsom argues that Democrats will continue to lose if they remain the only party that plays by the rules. But others worry about the integrity of electoral outcomes across the nation if political parties in every state resort to naked political gamesmanship to gain control. Texas Republicans have long been accused of crafting political maps to dilute the power of Black and Latino voters, which led to an ongoing lawsuit from 2021. Newsom's effort in California would effectively seek to increase the share of Democrats in Republican-held districts. Redistricting experts in California say redrawing the maps in the Golden State could create the potential for Democrats to flip at least five of the seats held by GOP incumbents. Democrats may have the potential for greater gains from gerrymandering, particularly in places such as California that have attempted to practice nonpartisan redistricting, compared to states such as Texas, where maps are already drawn in favor of Republicans. "It should be no surprise to anybody who covers Texas that every decade since 1970 Texas has been found to discriminate against people of color in its redistricting process," Anchía said. "In trying to do this, it is going to create great harm, not only to the people we represent, to the voters of the state of Texas, but also potentially to all Americans," he said about Trump's plan. It's common for the party in control of the White House to lose seats nationally in the first election after a presidential contest. Republicans hold majorities in the Senate and the House, and losing power to Democrats could be detrimental to Trump's presidency. Trump's job approval rating dropped to a second-term low of 37% in a Gallup poll conducted earlier this month. The dip is just above his lowest approval rating ever of 34% at the end of his first term. Trump has said publicly that he thinks it's possible for Republicans to redistrict and pick up five seats in Texas, with the potential for gains in other states that redraw their maps. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
Judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit over sanctuary laws in Chicago and Illinois
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Justice Department that accused the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago of unlawfully interfering with President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins in Chicago was a setback for Trump's litigation campaign against local "sanctuary" laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. White House and Justice Department spokespersons did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump, a Republican seeking to deport millions of immigrants in the country illegally, has sparred with Chicago and other Democratic strongholds over their policies. Democrats, in turn, have criticized the Trump administration's aggressive enforcement tactics, including plainclothes immigration agents covering their faces to hide their identities and arrests of immigrants with no criminal records. Supporters of sanctuary laws have said local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement would discourage immigrants who are living in the country illegally from coming forward as victims or witnesses to crimes. The Chicago City Council passed an ordinance in 2012 that stops city agencies and employees from getting involved in civil immigration enforcement or helping federal authorities with such efforts. The Illinois legislature passed a similar state law, known as the TRUST Act, in 2017. The Justice Department sued Chicago and Illinois in February, alleging these laws violate the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" that states that federal law preempts state and local laws that may conflict with it. Jenkins, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, rejected that argument in Friday's ruling, saying the city's and the state's policies are protected by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures that states retain significant powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. The Trump administration on Thursday filed a similar lawsuit against New York City over its local sanctuary laws. A similar case against Los Angeles is pending.
