Latest news with #R-S.D
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump signed the law creating ‘Women, Peace, and Security.' Why destroy it now?
At a time of rising global threats, it is reckless to undermine a proven national security tool. Yet that's exactly what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did when he announced the elimination of Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) at the Department of Defense and dismissed the WPS agenda as 'woke.' He couldn't be more wrong — and dangerously so. WPS is not some fringe initiative, it's the law of the land. It was created with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by President Trump in 2017. Republicans backing it included then-Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) (now secretary of Homeland Security) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) (now secretary of State) championed the law in Congress. It also had strong Democratic leadership with prime sponsors Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). The law reflected a strategic truth: when women are at the table — in national security decision-making, conflict prevention, peace negotiations and reconstruction efforts — peace tends to last longer, communities recover faster and missions are more effective. This isn't a feel-good theory; it is sound policy backed by decades of research and the hard realities of conflict zones, where women are often the first responders, last line of defense for families, and unfortunately, an afterthought. In places where rape is used as a weapon of war and instability rips communities apart, women aren't bystanders. Women rebuild schools, lead reconciliation efforts and restore order. The WPS Act acknowledges their role and requires four U.S. agencies to elevate it through training, interagency strategies and congressional oversight. At the Department of Defense, WPS efforts give us an advantage over our competitors and an edge on the battlefield. WPS advances women's meaningful participation in the military, establishing dedicated advisors across Department of Defense offices, and integrating with allies and partners. Thanks to this work, American servicemembers are better equipped to tackle their missions with a whole-of-population approach. Destroying the work of WPS defies law, data and experience. Concerningly, it hands our adversaries a win by sidelining half our population from global problem-solving. Women's leadership in peace and security isn't about ideology. It's about impact. WPS makes us safer. Stronger. Smarter. President Trump should instruct his Cabinet to respect the law he signed. And Congress must continue to fund these efforts. Women, Peace, and Security isn't just smart policy. It's the law, and it's vital to our national interest. Lois Frankel represents Florida's 22nd District and is co-chair of the bipartisan Women, Peace, and Security Caucus. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
The Hill
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump signed the law creating ‘Women, Peace, and Security.' Why destroy it now?
At a time of rising global threats, it is reckless to undermine a proven national security tool. Yet that's exactly what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth did when he announced the elimination of Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) at the Department of Defense and dismissed the WPS agenda as 'woke.' He couldn't be more wrong — and dangerously so. WPS is not some fringe initiative, it's the law of the land. It was created with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by President Trump in 2017. Republicans backing it included then-Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) (now secretary of Homeland Security) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) (now secretary of State) championed the law in Congress. It also had strong Democratic leadership with prime sponsors Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). The law reflected a strategic truth: when women are at the table — in national security decision-making, conflict prevention, peace negotiations and reconstruction efforts — peace tends to last longer, communities recover faster and missions are more effective. This isn't a feel-good theory; it is sound policy backed by decades of research and the hard realities of conflict zones, where women are often the first responders, last line of defense for families, and unfortunately, an afterthought. In places where rape is used as a weapon of war and instability rips communities apart, women aren't bystanders. Women rebuild schools, lead reconciliation efforts and restore order. The WPS Act acknowledges their role and requires four U.S. agencies to elevate it through training, interagency strategies and congressional oversight. At the Department of Defense, WPS efforts give us an advantage over our competitors and an edge on the battlefield. WPS advances women's meaningful participation in the military, establishing dedicated advisors across Department of Defense offices, and integrating with allies and partners. Thanks to this work, American servicemembers are better equipped to tackle their missions with a whole-of-population approach. Destroying the work of WPS defies law, data and experience. Concerningly, it hands our adversaries a win by sidelining half our population from global problem-solving. Women's leadership in peace and security isn't about ideology. It's about impact. WPS makes us safer. Stronger. Smarter. President Trump should instruct his Cabinet to respect the law he signed. And Congress must continue to fund these efforts. Women, Peace, and Security isn't just smart policy. It's the law, and it's vital to our national interest.
Boston Globe
03-04-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Measuring the cost of extending Trump's tax cuts becomes a flashpoint in Congress
The debate carries major ramifications for Trump's agenda and the country at large, with policy decisions in the balance that could shape America's economic and budgetary outlook for years to come. So what is the dispute all about? Advertisement Why lawmakers keep talking about the baseline Republicans are looking to draft their bill using a 'baseline,' or starting point, that shows no impact on the deficit. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Such a baseline assumes that Trump's 2017 tax cuts will continue regardless of their expiration date, essentially counting their renewal as cost-free. On top of that, Republicans are planning to go forward without a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian on whether the scoring change fits within the guidelines for passing tax cut bills with a simple majority. 'They are deciding that the way we're going to do this is to break the Senate and make up our own rules,' Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said as he spoke on the Senate floor for more than 25 hours to protest Trump's agenda. 'This is how they are going to get a bill through that gives trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthiest in the country.' Advertisement The accounting change makes it easier for Republicans to make the tax cuts permanent as they try to muscle a bill over the finish line this year. But it also underscores how tax cuts — as well as spending — have historically taken precedence over deficit reduction when it comes to legislative priorities, leading to more government borrowing and a national debt now exceeding $36 trillion. The arguments for and against the change Some of the most powerful forces in Washington are arguing for the accounting change. Scores of deep-pocketed trade and business groups say that creating a pathway for making the 2017 tax cuts permanent provides the certainty and stability companies need to drive growth and productivity. 'Americans should not have to worry about their tax relief expiring every few years,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. Meanwhile, fiscal watchdogs are sounding the alarm. 'I think this should be rejected by any fiscally responsible member of Congress,' said Michael Peterson, chairman and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a debt watchdog group. 'It's a blatant attempt to get around one of the few rules we have that protects the next generation and our fiscal future.' How it all relates to the Senate's filibuster Republicans are looking to pass Trump's tax cut package with a simple majority, which is usually not possible in the Senate, where most legislation requires 60 votes to advance. But the process for avoiding a Senate filibuster comes with certain rules, including it can't increase the deficit beyond a specific timeframe, typically 10 years. Republicans chose to sunset large portions of the 2017 tax cuts after just eight years to comply with that requirement. Advertisement The Senate parliamentarian generally decides whether legislative proposals fit within the rules for legislation not subject to a filibuster. But in this case, Republicans argue that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has the prerogative to decide which baseline is used to score the bill's cost. Schumer bristled at the GOP's approach. 'By ignoring the parliamentarian, Republicans are going nuclear,' Schumer said Wednesday. 'They're trampling all over rules that have governed the Senate for decades in order to give massive tax breaks for their billionaire friends.' The issue also came up at the White House when Trump met with Republican senators. 'We explained to him that we no longer need a ruling from the parliamentarian, that we can do it through the authority of the Budget chairman,' said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. 'We told him undoubtedly the Democrats will challenge it. We will win.' Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, notes that under the usual process, lawmakers have to fully offset the cost of the tax cuts in the long term or the bill's provisions will sunset. The scorekeeping change would free Congress of acknowledging the price tag of the proposed extension, she said, and would reduce the pressure to offset the extension's cost. 'It's an accounting gimmick that would make Enron executives blush,' she said. A different approach in the House House Republicans in their budget plan proceeded under the premise that the tax cuts do have a cost, which they attempted to partially offset with at least $2 trillion in spending cuts. It's unclear if House Republicans will go along with the Senate change. House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington of Texas has said he would be open to the Senate's proposal if certain conditions are met. Advertisement 'What I would hate to see happen is for a product to come from the Senate that has all the tax cuts that any Republican in the Senate could desire under any circumstance, but none of the hard decisions to rein in the spending that is driving us off a fiscal cliff,' Arrington said. Critics of the scorekeeping change also warn that Republicans may not like the precedent they've created should Democrats take back the majority. Peterson called it a 'foundational change' similar to doing away with the filibuster, 'and setting a dangerous precedent that could be abused by both parties in the future.' In the way that Republicans are looking to make temporary tax cuts permanent, he said, Democrats could work to make new spending permanent. 'Both of which would add materially to the debt and circumvent longstanding traditions and actual rules that are in the budget process today,' Peterson said.
Chicago Tribune
02-04-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
GOP senators push ahead on President Donald Trump's tax cuts package, punting big decisions for later
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans said they are pushing ahead on President Donald Trump's big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts this week, even though they're punting some of the most difficult decisions — including the costs and how to pay for the multitrillion-dollar package — until later. The Senate GOP's budget framework would be the companion to the House Republicans' $4.5 trillion tax cuts package that also calls for slashing some $2 trillion from health care and other programs. If the Senate can move the blueprint forward, it edges Trump's allies on Capitol Hill closer to a compromise setting the stage for a final product in the weeks ahead. 'Obviously we are hopeful this week we can get a budget resolution on the floor that will unlock the process,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. 'And so we are continuing to move forward with that.' While big differences remain, Republicans face increasing political pressure to deliver on what is expected to be Trump's signature domestic policy package — extending the tax cuts, which were initially approved in 2017, during his first term at the White House. Those tax breaks expire at the end of the year, and Trump wants to expand them to include new no taxes on tipped wages, overtime pay and other earnings, as he promised on the campaign trail. Democrats are preparing to oppose the GOP tax plans as giveaways to the wealthy, coming as billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is taking a 'chainsaw' to the federal government. They warn Republicans plan to slash government programs and services that millions of Americans depend on nationwide. 'We are standing together against the GOP tax scam and in defense of the American people,' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said alongside others on the Capitol steps late Tuesday. One main sticking point between the House and Senate GOP plans has been over whether the existing tax cuts, which are estimated to cost the federal government $4.5 trillion over the decade in lost revenue, need to be paid for by spending reductions elsewhere. Adding Trump's new tax breaks to the package would balloon the price tag even higher. To offset the costs, House Republicans are demanding some $2 trillion in cuts to health care and other accounts to stem the nation's federal deficits and prevent the nation's $36 trillion debt load from skyrocketing. But GOP senators have a different approach. Senate Republicans take the view that since the tax cuts are already the current policy, they would not be new — and would not need to be paid for. They want to use this current policy baseline moving forward, meaning only Trump's other proposed tax breaks would come with a new cost. They are expected to set much lower spending cuts as a floor that can be raised, if needed, to compromise with the House's $2 trillion in cuts. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and top Democrats call the Senate GOP's approach a gimmick at best — if not an outright 'lie.' 'It is an obscene fraud and the American people won't stand for it,' said Schumer, Sen. Jeff Merkley of the Budget Committee and Sen. Ron Wyden of the Finance Committee in a letter to GOP leadership. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey argued against the GOP baseline as 'a gimmick' that would slash important federal services while growing deficits. 'What they're investing in is bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest,' Booker said during a landmark overnight speech. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and congressional GOP leaders have been meeting privately as Trump's priority package churns on Capitol Hill. At a meeting with other Senate Republicans late Monday at the Capitol, Bessent urged them to get it done. 'We just got to start voting,' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, as he exited the Monday evening session. 'Treasury secretary made the point that this was something we needed to do — and do it quickly,' Cornyn said, adding the plan was for the Senate to launch the voting this week. 'We're going to grind through it.' Typically, the current policy baseline proposal would need to pass the muster of the Senate's nonpartisan parliamentarian, to make sure it abides by the strict rules of the budget process. Senators from both parties have been arguing in closed-door sessions with the parliamentarian staff — for and against the idea. However, the GOP leaders say they don't necessarily need the Senate parliamentarian, at this point, to resolve the issue, and they believe the Senate Budget chairman, Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., should simply use his perch to allow their current policy baseline approach. What is more certain is that they want to move quickly this week to pass the framework. That will entail a lengthy all-night vote — often called a vote-a-rama with consideration of various amendments and procedures — that could drag into the weekend. Then, they will sort out the details later as the Republicans, facing Democratic opposition, build the actual package for consideration in the weeks if not months ahead. Originally Published:
Boston Globe
20-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
As Trump turns toward Russia and against Ukraine, Republicans are mum
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Right now, you have got to give him some space,' Senator John Thune, R-S.D., the majority leader, said at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday after a closed-door Senate lunch with Vice President JD Vance. Advertisement The weekly meeting often provides senators an opportunity to iron out internal disputes. A few senators expressed a desire to use at least part of the time to press Vance about Trump's apparent willingness to abandon US allies, draw nearer to Putin and denounce President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as a 'dictator.' But when the time came, the topic did not come up, according to several attendees. 'What I'm in support of is a peaceful outcome and result in Ukraine,' Thune told reporters after the meeting, 'and I think right now the administration, the president and his team are working to achieve that.' Of Trump's labeling of Zelensky as a dictator, he said only: 'The president speaks for himself.' President Donald Trump talks to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. (left) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., after he spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 6. J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press Thune was among the sizable contingent of Republican senators who spent the past three years backing legislation to send tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine for its war effort. Now that Trump is in the White House, they are putting up little fight as he turns against Ukraine. Even Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former party leader who worked to establish himself as a principal Republican voice in support of Ukraine and a counterweight to Trump's 'America first' approach to foreign policy, has remained publicly silent in the face of the president's move toward Russia. Advertisement It is a striking turn for Republicans, who for decades defined themselves as the party of a strong defense and argued that the United States had a pivotal role to play as a beacon of freedom and defender of democracies around the globe. Some GOP lawmakers have made clear they do not agree with Trump's approach, but most have done so taking pains not to criticize the president. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the chair of the Armed Services Committee, said he disagreed with the idea of Trump holding an in-person meeting with Putin. 'My advice to the president, if he asked me, would be not to give Vladimir Putin the benefit of sitting with a democratically elected head of state,' said Wicker, calling the Russian leader 'an international scofflaw and a war criminal of the worst kind.' But though he leads the Senate committee that oversees national security, Wicker made it clear that Trump has not consulted him. A year ago, nearly two dozen Republican senators defied Trump's wishes and voted in favor of continuing to send tens of billions of dollars in military and other aid to Ukraine to fight off Russia. Few of those lawmakers have spoken out against his current stance, and those who have mostly offered carefully worded criticism aimed at Putin — but not Trump. 'Well, it sounds like that's the direction they are headed,' Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said of the Trump administration's push to reset diplomatic ties with Russia. Advertisement Murkowski, appearing to speak carefully to avoid directly criticizing Trump, said that she hoped that the country would not 'lose sight of the fact that Russia, Putin just brazenly and without regard to life or borders invaded Ukraine.' 'I think we need to be very careful,' she added. Trump has said in recent days Ukraine is to blame for the start of the war, telling reporters from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that Ukrainian leaders 'could have made a deal.' On Wednesday, he sharpened his criticism, calling Zelensky a Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who recently returned from a trip to Kyiv where he and two other senators reaffirmed their support for Ukraine, balked at the 'dictator' remark. 'It's not a word I would use,' he told reporters on Wednesday. 'There is no moral equivalency between Vladimir Putin and President Zelensky,' Tillis said of the comments Trump made in a post on his social media site. Now that Trump is in office, many Republicans have dropped their most hawkish positions on Russia and Putin to support his push to end the war. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., once called Putin a 'thug' and a war criminal, saying he 'needs to be dealt with.' But shortly after Trump announced that Putin had extended an invitation for the president to travel to Moscow, Graham changed his tune substantially. 'I don't care if they meet Putin in Cleveland,' he said in recent days of plans to hold high-level talks between the White House and the Kremlin. 'I don't care if they talk, I don't care if they go on vacation. It doesn't matter to me what you do as long as you get it right.' Advertisement On Wednesday, Graham wrote on social media that Trump 'is Ukraine's best hope to end this war honorably and justly,' adding that he believes the president 'will be successful and he will achieve this goal in the Trump way.' This article originally appeared in .
