Latest news with #GOP-led
The Hill
21 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump administration unveils more detailed proposal for steep 2026 spending cuts
The Trump administration on Friday unveiled more details of the president's vision for how to fund the government in fiscal year 2026, expanding on its request earlier this month for steep spending cuts. The lengthy budget appendix, which stretches to more than 1,200 pages, comes as Republicans in both chambers have pressed the administration for more information about the president's proposed funding cuts. President Trump is calling for more than $160 billion in cuts to nondefense discretionary spending — amounting to about 22 percent — while requesting a boost to defense dollars. While presidential budget requests aren't signed into law, they can serve as a blueprint for lawmakers as they begin crafting their funding legislation. House appropriators will take up the first set of funding bills next week, with subcommittees on military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, rural development, and the Department of Agriculture set to meet to consider the proposals on Thursday. The White House rolled out Trump's so-called skinny budget about a month ago. It ran 46 pages, and it's not unusual for presidents to first roll out shorter versions of their proposals before releasing more details. But GOP appropriators said they needed more information about the president's funding wishlist, and budget hawks grumbled at the time about key details missing. 'There needs to be a lot more programmatic detail to write these bills to,' Cole told The Hill ahead of the current congressional recess. 'Their skinny line budget is just that. It's not a full presidential budget.' 'We will just do a better job for them,' Cole said at the time, if appropriators have more guidance from the administration. The bills from the GOP-led House are expected to be more partisan in nature than in the Senate, where Democratic votes will be needed to get annual funding legislation across the floor. Democrats have already come out in strong opposition to the president's budget request. And there are serious trust issues in the party about eventual negotiations with Republicans on fiscal year 2026 funding as the administration has undertaken a sweeping operation to shrink the size of the government without buy-in from Congress. 'This is a draconian proposal to hurt working people and our economy, and it is dead on arrival in Congress as long as I have anything to say about it,' Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement Friday. 'This is not a complete budget,' Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, also said Friday. 'We are supposed to start putting together the funding bills for 2026 next week. If, as expected, House Republicans follow what President Trump has proposed so far, it is not a serious effort to deliver for the American people.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
One question dogs Pennsylvania's cannabis debate: Should big businesses have a leg up?
Spotlight PA is an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania. Sign up for our free newsletters. HARRISBURG — It wasn't simply opposition to recreational marijuana that led a GOP-led state Senate panel to roundly reject a Democratic pitch to legalize the drug earlier this month. Lawmakers balked at selling cannabis at state-run stores similar to Pennsylvania's liquor shops and shutting out existing medical dispensaries. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Since that vote, there hasn't been any public movement on legalization, and it's unlikely any deal will be reached by the June 30 budget deadline. That's because of the complexity of the issue and lawmakers' significant remaining areas of disagreement, including just how much of a leg up existing cannabis companies should get in a potentially multibillion-dollar market. As the legislature mulls that question, major companies that sell medical marijuana in Pennsylvania and recreational cannabis in other states are spending millions of dollars to influence them. At least two of the legalization proposals circulating in Harrisburg would allow medical sellers to convert to recreational sales, according to the bills' sponsors. Entering the recreational market first offers a major advantage, often letting sellers begin operating before stricter regulations are fully enacted and capturing a significant share of customers before competitors are off the ground. That happened in Maryland when recreational cannabis was legalized in 2023: medical dispensaries were allowed to immediately begin selling to recreational customers, while social equity applicants had to wait nearly a year for licensing approval before beginning the process of setting up stores. As they waited, medical and adult-use sales exceeded $1.1 billion. Cannabis companies are willing to spend heavily to secure that kind of head start, said Chris Goldstein, a Pennsylvania-based advocate with the pro-legalization National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. In 2024 alone, cannabis companies spent at least $1.6 million lobbying lawmakers in Pennsylvania. Big cannabis companies also have the resources to sue when they oppose regulations. A lawsuit brought by a multistate operator, for instance, led federal courts to strike down Maine's requirement that license holders be state residents. Goldstein said lobbying and lawsuits can make it difficult for states to enact consumer protection regulations that succeed at making a market competitive for smaller businesses. 'States are trying to compete against international multibillion-dollar corporations who have lobbyists, lots of money, and … are quite litigious to boot,' Goldstein said. Goldstein favors excluding existing medical cannabis dispensaries from recreational sales, a proposition that appears unlikely to succeed with Pennsylvania lawmakers. But other consumer advocates say there are ways for the state legislature to prioritize small businesses, especially those impacted by the war on drugs, while still allowing medical sellers to participate in the industry. Kristal Bush is a cannabis advocate who formerly worked for Trulieve, one of the largest cannabis companies in the U.S. If Pennsylvania legalizes recreational cannabis, she believes it should delay commercial sales to give small businesses time to set up dispensaries. Moving too quickly without giving them this setup time, she said, is what enables legacy businesses to dominate the industry. 'If we're just pushing for legalization this year … that's not enough time to get people that [are not] on the legacy market the resources to be able to compete,' Bush told Spotlight PA. 'We're really setting our people up for failure.' Bush said the state should work with small businesses to provide 'pre-industry support' over the next few years. That includes the state proactively looking for social equity applicants, providing training and technical assistance for those applicants, and creating workforce development programs for the cannabis industry, all before legalization occurs. She supports allowing medical dispensaries to convert their existing licenses to permit recreational sales. However, Bush thinks all new licenses should be reserved for small business owners, particularly those from communities disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of cannabis. All of the proposals on the table in Pennsylvania include social equity measures. Ideas include directing tax revenue to grant and loan programs for communities impacted by the war on drugs and expunging the records of individuals convicted of nonviolent marijuana-related crimes. Damian Fagon — director of the Bronx Cannabis Hub, which helps residents navigate New York's cannabis laws, and former chief equity officer of the state's Office of Cannabis Management — said the legislature can also implement policies to make the industry more equitable once it's up and running. For example, he suggested lawmakers could require dispensaries to stock a certain percentage of their inventory from cannabis growers based in Pennsylvania or from those who qualify as social equity licensees. Fagon emphasized that achieving equity depends on allowing medical sellers and small businesses to access the recreational market at the same time, though he acknowledged that synchronizing this rollout would be challenging. New York did not initially allow its small network of medical cannabis sellers to join the recreational market, instead prioritizing the establishment of dispensaries run by those harmed by marijuana prohibition. The lack of licensed dispensaries resulted in a large illicit market. 'There are entrenched interests in Pennsylvania that you know will have a lot of influence over this legislative process, and not in the way that advantages small business,' Fagon said. Lobbyists for large medical cannabis companies have pushed back against proposals aimed at excluding existing sellers, arguing that these approaches would just harm consumers. Meredith Buettner, executive director of the Pennsylvania Cannabis Coalition — a trade group representing medical cannabis sellers and associated businesses — said medical companies have already invested millions to build a robust network that could easily transition into the recreational market. She also warned that barring medical dispensaries from the recreational market could lead to a surge in unlicensed sellers, similar to what happened in New York. 'Instead of reinventing the wheel, Pennsylvanians would be best served by allowing the medical industry to continue in the market they already invested millions in,' Buettner told Spotlight PA. Several consumer protection advocates who focus on the country's burgeoning recreational cannabis industry told Spotlight PA that they would have reservations about bills that allow well-established sellers to enter Pennsylvania's new market without strict guidelines, such as limits on how many licenses medical sellers can obtain or mandating the dispensaries to stock products from local growers. Lawmakers are floating legalization proposals in Harrisburg, but none have formally introduced bill language yet. However, a previous version of a bill backed by state Sen. Dan Laughlin (R., Erie) — who heads a key committee and has the best shot at pushing a measure through the chamber — included restrictions on the number of licenses and required medical sellers seeking a recreational license to 'sponsor' a social equity candidate. Laughlin has declined to comment on when he plans to reintroduce his bill, saying recently it's 'not ready yet. ' While many lawmakers' goal was to include a legal cannabis deal in this year's budget — bringing with it badly needed revenue — it's looking less likely, according to at least one key member. Asked whether a cannabis agreement looked possible by the end of next month, state Rep. Rick Krajewski (D., Philadelphia), a sponsor of his chamber's now-dead state store bill, told Spotlight PA, 'I don't think so, unless [the state Senate's] tune changes.' 'The Senate has to get serious, and they have to either bring up the bill for reconsideration or send us something else,' he said. State House Majority Leader Matt Bradford (D., Montgomery) said his chamber, having already advanced its pitch, is taking a backseat. He's now waiting to see if the state Senate will pass its own legalization bill. A spokesperson for the upper chamber did not return a request for comment. If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's tariffs are bad economics, bad politics and unconstitutional
An injunction from the little-known Court of International Trade 'permanently enjoined' President Trump on Wednesday from enforcing many of his tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Neither executive authority nor congressionally delegated power allows the President to institute unprecedented global tariffs using emergency powers, the federal court unanimously ruled. On Thursday, a second federal court also blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including the so-called 'Liberation Day' ones. But just hours later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused the trade court's block. These rulings bring to forefront two constitutional debates in American history: the limits of executive authority and the right of Congress to regulate commerce. The Court of International Trade is correct to limit executive authority. Before a prostrate GOP-led Congress, the judgment reminds elected officials about the sources and legitimacy of their power: the American people and their Constitution. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 'to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Initially enacted to regulate interstate commerce, over the last 250 years the law evolved to increase federal authority over international commerce and restrict one state's ability to regulate commerce in another. Powers reserved to the states, which Republicans traditionally championed, have stood against granting Congress unchecked authority to regulate commerce. Presidents have historically claimed vast executive authority. Before Trump, several presidents employed the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to place economic sanctions on states that threatened U.S or international security. But Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act for tariffs was unprecedented. In its 49-page ruling, the trade court noted that Congress does not provide the president 'unbounded tariff power' and that the law would only be valid to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Trump invoked emergency powers on two grounds: a purported fentanyl import crisis from Canada and Mexico, and the supposed worldwide lack of reciprocity on trade. Empirical evidence on the former, especially in the case of Canada, was spurious, despite the administration's continuing dissembling about fentanyl seizures. On trade reciprocity, the administration concocted a mathematical formula equating lack of reciprocity with trade deficits that makes no sense on economic grounds, let alone the practical and profitable aspects of businesses. Congress ought to have stepped in at this point, but it lacked the spine to act. In fact, the trade court called attention to the 'improper abdication of legislative power.' The trade court heard two cases, a lawsuit led by Oregon from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and another from a group of small businesses. In the former case, states' rights are being asserted by Democratic states arguing that Trump's tariffs stood in the way of provision of services. Conservatives, including Trump, often appeal to states' rights on issues such as religion, guns, schools, abortion, marriage and civil rights. The small business case was led by a wine-making company named VOS Selections, which argued that tariffs would make the business unprofitable. Economists would agree, as did the trade court. While small businesses went to the trade court, big business has been strategically vocal about the harmful impact of tariffs. With neither the businesses nor the states supporting the president's trade policy, one must ask whom the president represents in his trade policy measures. Public polling on trade might provide an answer: die-hard MAGA supporters, who tend to be rural, under-educated and fearful of anything global or cosmopolitan. They are entitled to these fears. The question is if the president can enact trade policy on their behalf. The answer is yes only if one agrees with Trump's political calculations, not the Constitution. At the trade court, Trump's lawyers made a political argument, ostensibly on behalf of the MAGA fearful. They contended that these tariffs were necessary and that the president had the political mandate to negotiate new trade measures with countries around the world. The three-judge panel — made up of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — unanimously dismissed these political claims. Instead, the panel focused on the legal and constitutional limits on executive power. The immediate appeal to the Circuit Court provided an at least temporary victory, and the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. The White House already has a new argument that unelected judges cannot rule on these matters. Not only does this argument negate constitutional checks on executive power, but the president also continues to overestimate his electoral mandate. An emerging set of conservative champions of executive authority, citing classic sources, almost equate presidential power with the absolute or divine rights of kings. Vice President JD Vance in particular propounds such views. These 'divine right conservatives' now must confront the traditional champions of pragmatic conservatism in America: businesses, consumers, markets and the states. The courts are unlikely to uphold new conservative arguments for unchecked executive power. The Supreme Court has leaned in favor of states' rights on many questions. In the case of trade, the states' rights argument is now the bailiwick of Democratic states. Politics continues to make for strange bedfellows. In the meantime, markets rose after the court ruling Wednesday. J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
a day ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs are bad economics, bad politics and unconstitutional
An injunction from the little-known Court of International Trade 'permanently enjoined' President Trump on Wednesday from enforcing many of his tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Neither executive authority nor congressionally delegated power allows the President to institute unprecedented global tariffs using emergency powers, the federal court unanimously ruled. On Thursday, a second federal court also blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including the so-called 'Liberation Day' ones. But just hours later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused the trade court's block. These rulings bring to forefront two constitutional debates in American history: the limits of executive authority and the right of Congress to regulate commerce. The Court of International Trade is correct to limit executive authority. Before a prostrate GOP-led Congress, the judgment reminds elected officials about the sources and legitimacy of their power: the American people and their Constitution. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 'to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Initially enacted to regulate interstate commerce, over the last 250 years the law evolved to increase federal authority over international commerce and restrict one state's ability to regulate commerce in another. Powers reserved to the states, which Republicans traditionally championed, have stood against granting Congress unchecked authority to regulate commerce. Presidents have historically claimed vast executive authority. Before Trump, several presidents employed the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to place economic sanctions on states that threatened U.S or international security. But Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act for tariffs was unprecedented. In its 49-page ruling, the trade court noted that Congress does not provide the president 'unbounded tariff power' and that the law would only be valid to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Trump invoked emergency powers on two grounds: a purported fentanyl import crisis from Canada and Mexico, and the supposed worldwide lack of reciprocity on trade. Empirical evidence on the former, especially in the case of Canada, was spurious, despite the administration's continuing dissembling about fentanyl seizures. On trade reciprocity, the administration concocted a mathematical formula equating lack of reciprocity with trade deficits that makes no sense on economic grounds, let alone the practical and profitable aspects of businesses. Congress ought to have stepped in at this point, but it lacked the spine to act. In fact, the trade court called attention to the 'improper abdication of legislative power.' The trade court heard two cases, a lawsuit led by Oregon from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and another from a group of small businesses. In the former case, states' rights are being asserted by Democratic states arguing that Trump's tariffs stood in the way of provision of services. Conservatives, including Trump, often appeal to states' rights on issues such as religion, guns, schools, abortion, marriage and civil rights. The small business case was led by a wine-making company named VOS Selections, which argued that tariffs would make the business unprofitable. Economists would agree, as did the trade court. While small businesses went to the trade court, big business has been strategically vocal about the harmful impact of tariffs. With neither the businesses nor the states supporting the president's trade policy, one must ask whom the president represents in his trade policy measures. Public polling on trade might provide an answer: die-hard MAGA supporters, who tend to be rural, under-educated and fearful of anything global or cosmopolitan. They are entitled to these fears. The question is if the president can enact trade policy on their behalf. The answer is yes only if one agrees with Trump's political calculations, not the Constitution. At the trade court, Trump's lawyers made a political argument, ostensibly on behalf of the MAGA fearful. They contended that these tariffs were necessary and that the president had the political mandate to negotiate new trade measures with countries around the world. The three-judge panel — made up of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — unanimously dismissed these political claims. Instead, the panel focused on the legal and constitutional limits on executive power. The immediate appeal to the Circuit Court provided an at least temporary victory, and the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. The White House already has a new argument that unelected judges cannot rule on these matters. Not only does this argument negate constitutional checks on executive power, but the president also continues to overestimate his electoral mandate. An emerging set of conservative champions of executive authority, citing classic sources, almost equate presidential power with the absolute or divine rights of kings. Vice President JD Vance in particular propounds such views. These 'divine right conservatives' now must confront the traditional champions of pragmatic conservatism in America: businesses, consumers, markets and the states. The courts are unlikely to uphold new conservative arguments for unchecked executive power. The Supreme Court has leaned in favor of states' rights on many questions. In the case of trade, the states' rights argument is now the bailiwick of Democratic states. Politics continues to make for strange bedfellows. In the meantime, markets rose after the court ruling Wednesday. J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives.
USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
'Trump Train' the latest in a wave of GOP-led renaming efforts
'Trump Train' the latest in a wave of GOP-led renaming efforts Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk officially departs Trump administration Elon Musk is leaving the Trump administration as his allotted 130 days as a "special government employee" ends. A Florida congressman is introducing a bill to try to rename Washington, D.C.'s metro to the "Trump Train," the latest in a series of efforts by GOP lawmakers to attach President Donald Trump's name to various buildings and infrastructure. Rep. Greg Steube, R-Florida, on Thursday, May 29 introduced the "Make Autorail Great Again Act," which would block all federal funding to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) until it officially changes its name and that of the Metro it operates. Steube wants WMATA to go as WMAGA instead − short for "Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access" − and for the Metro to become the "Trump Train," according to a news release from his office. "WMATA has received billions in federal assistance over the years and continues to face operational, safety, and fiscal challenges," Steube said in the release. "In the spirit of DOGE, this bill demands accountability by conditioning federal funding on reforms that signal a cultural shift away from bureaucratic stagnation toward public-facing excellence and patriotism." The Metro says it ferries 600,000 customers a day throughout the Washington, D.C. area and in surrounding Virginia and Maryland. With 98 stations, it is the second busiest metro system in the United States. The Florida lawmaker is just the latest member of the GOP to try to attach the president's name to a piece of infrastructure or building. Other Republicans have pursued a raft of proposals over the past year, ranging from adding Trump to Mount Rushmore to printing $500 bills featuring Trump's visage. 'Let's get carving!': Congresswoman introduces bill to add Trump to Mount Rushmore Here are some other recent proposals from Republican lawmakers aiming for significant Trump renames. Rep. Addison McDowell, R-North Carolina, introduced legislation Jan. 23 proposing Washington Dulles International Airport be renamed as Donald J. Trump International Airport. It failed in committee in mid-March. In Texas, Republican state Rep. Joanne Shofner introduced on March 14 a bill to rename a portion of I-35 in Travis County to the President Donald J. Trump Highway. In Arizona, a proposed bill from Republican state Sen. Wendy Rogers aimed to rename State Route 260 as the "Donald J. Trump Highway." It failed to make it out of the legislature. "I will bring it back next year and I will bring it back the following year, because we will honor this great President Donald J. Trump," Rogers said, according to KJZZ. Kentucky also wants to rename a highway after the president, with GOP lawmakers Jan. 7 introducing a joint resolution to designate 11 miles of Kentucky Route 18 in Boone County the "President Donald J. Trump Highway." Contributing: Natalie Neysa Alund and Kinsey Crowley, USA TODAY. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
