White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran discusses the economy
White House Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran joins Blake Burman to discuss whether the GOP can pass their 'Megabill' by President Trump's hoped-for deadline of July 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
9 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.
The Hill
11 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.'
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
President Trump hedges on deadline for mega tax bill to pass Congress
WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump is trying to blame Democrats as his "big, beautiful bill" appears to be stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate, leaving the second-term president and his GOP allies scrambling to find a way to push forward on campaign promises to eliminate taxes on tips and spend more money on border enforcement. "The problem we have is that it's a great bill, it's a popular bill," Trump said during a June 27 White House press conference of the sweeping piece of legislation that is not polling well with many Americans. "But we'll get no Democrats only because they don't want to vote for Trump." Trump has pressed Senate Republicans to stay on his ambitious timeline to complete their work by July 4 and get the measure to his desk for signature into law. But the president also acknowledged his ambitions might not become reality amid deep internal GOP policy disputes and complex Senate rules that have sent the mega bill through the legislative shredder. More: GOP senators negotiate Trump budget bill in hopes of improving its polling Among the many concerns Republicans are still trying to work through are their own proposed cuts for Medicaid eligibility, which Democrats already see as a winning political message for them in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections where they're looking to retake majorities in both the House and Senate. Trump has said previously he wants Congress to pass the sweeping bill and get it to his desk by Independence Day. But for that to happen the Senate still needs to finalize and pass its version, before then sending it back to the GOP-led House to reconcile any differences with their efforts that previously won approval with the slimmest of majorities in May. As the Senate continues to grapple with concerns including the legislation's high cost and the Medicaid language, Trump is hedging his own deadline. "It's important," but, "it's not the end-all," Trump told reporters on June 27. "We'd like to get it done by that time, if possible," Trump said. Further complications have come in the form of Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's ruling on what is and is not within the scope of a spending bill. MacDonough, a nonpartisan official, found several Senate Republicans' provisions in violation, including attempts to repeal federal food aid for noncitizens, multiple measures softening environmental regulations and deregulation for gun silencers. "The parliamentarian's been a little difficult," Trump said. "I would say that I disagree with the parliamentarian on some things, and on other ways, she's been fine." Trump did not go so far as to call for her termination, though, unlike some Republicans on Capitol Hill. The president is instead laying the groundwork to pin the blame on his congressional opponents. "The Democrats won't approve it only because politically it's so good for the Republicans," Trump said. "If I were a Democrat, I would vote for this bill all day long," he added. Polling has shown Trump's bill is not scoring well with in public opinion. Fewer than 30% of voters support the bill in three recent surveys by Pew, Quinnipiac and the Washington Post-Ipsos. The bill is doubtful to get support from any Senate Democrat, but under special Senate rules, only 51 Republicans are needed to sign-off and avoid a filibuster.
