Gun, Silencer Provisions Blocked From Trump Tax Bill in Senate
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 ruleskeeper.
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
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
SALT Caucus, White House zero in on key agreement in Trump megabill
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states and the Trump administration are zeroing in on an agreement for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which has been one of the key hangups dogging the party's 'big, beautiful bill.' Multiple sources familiar with the SALT talks told The Hill that the House members and Trump administration officials are closing in on a plan for SALT, but it must be sold to Senate Republicans before being finalized. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who has been the lead Senate GOP negotiator on SALT, told The Hill 'There's a tentative deal between the SALT and White House, but not the Senate [which is] still talking through that.' One source familiar with the SALT talks, however, cautioned against saying there is a 'deal' on the table because Senate Republicans — who have been opposed to increasing the deduction cap — still have to sign off on the terms. 'Having learned my lesson with the House language, the Senate needs to have buy in here so I'm waiting to see what their fingerprints look like,' the source said. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has met with SALT Caucus members in recent days, is scheduled to join Senate Republicans at their lunch on Friday, two sources confirmed to The Hill, a gathering that could include discussion regarding SALT. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who did not attend SALT talks at the Treasury Department Thursday afternoon, said he 'heard of a deal' that includes a $40,000 deduction cap — the same number in the House bill — for five years, which would snapback to $10,000 for the next five years 'and then in perpetuity.' LaLota, who has been one of the most vocal SALT Caucus members, said he is opposed to that proposal. 'I'm a hard no on that,' he told reporters, adding that the proposal 'just affirms the very thing I've been against for so long.' It remains unclear if the plan LaLota outlined is the same proposal that the SALT Caucus members and administration are closing in on. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), for his part, on Friday sounded bullish on a SALT breakthrough. 'A lot of progress yesterday,' he told reporters. 'I think we'll get that resolved in a manner that everybody can live with. No one will be delighted about it, but that's kind of the way this works around here.' The news of an impending agreement is a significant development in the long-stalled negotiations over SALT, which had been one of the thorniest issues Republicans have had to deal with. The House bill included a $40,000 deduction cap — quadruple the $10,000 in current law — for individuals making $500,000 or less. Senate Republicans, however, enraged House SALT Caucus members by chopping that down, proposing a $10,000 deduction cap. Since then, the two camps have been engaged in fierce negotiations. In recent days, those talks have largely centered on keeping the $40,000 deduction cap from the House bill intact but changing the $500,000 income threshold and indexing for inflation. The administration, on behalf of Senate Republicans, offered the SALT Caucus a plan on Thursday that had a total value of $200 billion, far less than the $344 billion value in the House bill, according to Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), a key member of the SALT Caucus. Several lawmakers in the group, however, rejected that proposal.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Transit authorities make surprising decision that will have big impact on Tesla drivers: 'Clearly a step in the wrong direction'
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority's decision to remove Tesla Superchargers from its service plazas means commuters could pay more for charging sessions or be unable to power up. Electric vehicle owners are decrying the move — whether they own a Tesla or not. On May 30, Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) announced on the social platform X that the NJTA requested the removal and decommissioning of all 64 Supercharger stalls on the New Jersey Turnpike even though the company said it offered "above-market commercial terms." Tesla has had Superchargers on the turnpike since 2014, according to Not a Tesla App, offering EV drivers 99.9% uptime (representing impressive availability and functionality) and 30% lower charging costs than those of competitors. However, as Electrek noted, Tesla's 2020 agreement with the NJTA has expired, and the transit authority has bestowed exclusive charging rights to Applegreen Electric. According to The New York Times, Applegreen already manages restaurants and stores along the turnpike. Tesla has struggled with volatile stock and declining sales this year, with CEO Elon Musk's involvement with the U.S. government and public rift with President Donald Trump key factors, worrying investors and polarizing consumers who view support for Tesla as a political statement. While Musk alleged that the NJTA's deal with Applegreen and refusal to allow Tesla to relocate its chargers on the turnpike was due to "corruption," he did not provide any evidence to support those claims. NJTA spokesperson Thomas Feeney told the Times that the move was intended to expand charging access to non-Tesla EV drivers. However, EV owners have been overwhelmingly united in their disdain for the NJTA's decision, arguing that the transit authority is making EV ownership more difficult, according to Not a Tesla App, which pointed out that Tesla's Supercharger network "is becoming the de facto fast-charging standard for a growing number of non-Tesla EVs." Drivers report that Applegreen's chargers, which feature only CCS1 cables, offer a worse charging experience or don't work at all, giving the company's iOS app a 1.9 rating out of 5. "This is clearly a step in the wrong direction that will hurt all EV owners," the publication wrote, also pointing to the millions of dollars of charging infrastructure that would be taken away without immediate replacement. In its statement on X, Tesla indicated that it would like to maintain its presence on the New Jersey Turnpike, saying it supports the addition of third-party chargers because it "drives down costs through optionality and accelerates EV adoption by having sufficient capacity to shoulder peaks." When you think about owning an EV, what concerns you most about public charging stations? Chargers not working Chargers not being available Charging being too expensive Charging taking too long Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. While boosting profitability is surely a major motivating factor for Tesla, having more EVs on roads would also benefit communities, reducing asthma-linked heat-trapping pollution from transportation. EV drivers also spend less money on energy and maintenance. In the meantime, Tesla says it will continue expanding its Supercharger network off the turnpike in New Jersey. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congo and Rwanda will sign a US-mediated peace deal to end the conflict in eastern Congo
DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda are set to sign a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decades-long deadly fighting in eastern Congo. The deal, which is due to be signed in Washington on Friday afternoon, would also help the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region. The Central African nation of Congo has been ripped apart by conflict with more than 100 armed groups. The most prominent is the M23 rebel group, backed by neighboring Rwanda, whose major advance early this year left bodies littered on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in Congo, the United Nations has called it 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.' Lauded by U.S. President Donald Trump last week as 'a Great Day for Africa and ... for the World,' the crucial deal comes as part of other ongoing peace talks to end the conflict, including ones mediated by the African Union and Qatar. The agreement involves provisions on respect for territorial integrity, a prohibition of hostilities as well as the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups, U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott told reporters on Thursday. U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric also said on Thursday that such a deal is welcomed, adding: 'We talk almost every day about … the horrific suffering of civilians, the hunger, the sexual violence, the constant fear, the constant displacement' in eastern Congo. Peace deal not likely to quickly end the conflict Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, and from the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said that it's defending its territorial interests and not supporting M23. But M23 rebels have suggested that the agreement won't be binding on them. The rebel group hasn't been directly involved in the planned peace deal, although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks. Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance — known by its French acronym AFC — that includes M23, told The Associated Press in March that direct peace talks with Congo can only be held if the country acknowledges their grievances and that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.' An M23 spokesman, Oscar Balinda, also echoed those thoughts in an interview with the AP this week, saying the U.S.-facilitated deal doesn't concern the rebels. Rwanda has also been accused of exploiting eastern Congo's minerals, a trend analysts say might make it difficult for Rwanda to not be involved in any way in the region. A team of U.N. experts alleged in a December report that "fraudulent extraction, trade and export to Rwanda of (Congo) minerals benefited both AFC/M23 and the Rwandan economy.' Rwanda has denied any involvement in Congo's minerals. The deal is also at the heart of the U.S. government's push to counter China in Africa. Chinese companies have been for many years one of the key players in Congo's minerals sector. Chinese cobalt refineries, which account for a majority of the global supply, rely heavily on Congo. U.S. role in ending the conflict Analysts say the U.S. government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under separate negotiations between the American and Congolese government. The mostly untapped minerals — estimated to be worth as much as $24 trillion by the U.S. Department of Commerce — are critical to much of the world's technology. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the planned deal a 'major turning point' in the decades-long conflict, but that the signing could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.' 'The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor,' he said. 'This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation.' In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest hit by the fighting, some believe that the peace deal will help resolve the violence, but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace to take hold. 'I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100%,' said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. 'It is up to us to capitalize on all we have now as an opportunity.' ___ Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations, Justin Kabumba in Goma, Congo, Ignatius Ssuuna in Kigali, Rwanda, and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report. Chinedu Asadu, The Associated Press
