Latest news with #RayburnHouse
Washington Post
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Democrats' Medicaid fight is a masterclass in resistance
For a party that has been shut out of power in Washington, what happened this week in Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building was a masterclass in resistance. Over more than 26 sleepless hours that began on Tuesday afternoon and continued into Wednesday, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee pounded the panel's Republican majority with 33 amendments, most of which were aimed at stripping the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' containing politically toxic cuts to Medicaid. In the hallway outside, police arrested more than two dozen protesters, many of whom were in wheelchairs.
Fox News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Capitol Police arrest protesters disrupting budget markup as Cory Booker thanks them for defending Medicaid
More than two dozen protesters were arrested for disrupting the House Energy and Commerce's budget reconciliation markup on Tuesday, as Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., thanked those holding court in the hallway. "Around 2 p.m., 26 people were arrested for illegally demonstrating in the Rayburn House Office Building. They were arrested for 22-1307 Crowding, Obstructing, and Incommoding. It is against the law to protest inside the Congressional Buildings," the U.S. Capitol Police Department told Fox News Digital. Dozens of protesters, many in wheelchairs, filled the halls outside the John D. Dingell Room in the Rayburn House Office Building on Tuesday afternoon, chanting, "No cuts to Medicaid!" Several protesters, who were blocking the entrance to the committee room, were wheeled away and arrested by Capitol police after multiple warnings. A defiant Booker walked by the budget markup during its first hour and was greeted by the cheers and whistles of those protesting Medicaid cuts. Booker, who spent more than 12 hours protesting President Donald Trump's agenda on the steps of the U.S. Capitol just two weeks ago, thanked the protesters for showing up to protect Medicaid. A Capitol police officer confirmed to Fox News Digital that disruptors were arrested for protesting and would be processed and released immediately. Many protesters remained in the hallway during the first few hours of the markup as others were removed for shouting during the representative's testimonies and subsequently arrested. "The audience is supportive that you're all here and participating. We want you here. You're part of the process. We want you to be here, but we have to proceed. And the rules of the House, and the law is that – if you're disruptive, you'll be removed, and you're subject to arrest. I don't make that decision, the Capitol Police does," Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said following one of several disruptions by protesters. Inside the budget markup, Democrats and Republicans sparred over rhetoric about Medicaid cuts. Democrats claimed the Republican budget bill would cut vital access to Medicaid, with many representatives sharing stories of their constituents who have benefited from its services. Meanwhile, Republicans accused Democrats of lying to the American people about Medicaid cuts – a word Guthrie deterred his colleagues from using. "I want to send one very clear message: you're being lied to. The other side is telling you a lot of things about this legislation. I'm not sure they have read this legislation," Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., who chairs the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, said. Republicans mostly avoided the deep cuts to Medicaid pushed by fiscal conservatives in the House Republican Conference, which could serve to benefit moderate Republicans who have fielded relentless attacks from Democrats over potential Medicaid cuts. House Republicans, however, have vowed to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program. The committee's budget markup includes increased regulations and program cuts to Medicaid, including tightened address verification requirements, ensuring deceased individuals are not enrolled, more provider screening requirements, removing excess Medicaid payments, revising home equity limits for determining eligibility, prohibiting illegal immigrants from obtaining Medicaid services, ensuring accurate payments, prohibiting funding for gender transition procedures for minors and requirements for states to establish Medicaid community engagement programs. "This budget does not cut Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security benefits for the Americans who truly need them. We are strengthening and protecting Medicaid for pregnant women, children, individuals with disabilities, low-income seniors and vulnerable families. These Americans will continue to have access to the care they need and deserve. What we are doing is eliminating waste, fraud and abuse," Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Indiana, told the committee. But despite Republicans' assurances that the proposed budget does not cut Medicaid, Democrats testified, one after the other, about the threats program cuts pose to Americans. "They are cutting this Medicaid care and these Medicaid dollars to pay for tax cuts for Elon Musk and billionaires, so this money isn't even going towards funding better care for people who are eligible… We are cutting money and health care from people and families who are suffering, to pay for tax cuts for the rich. It is a crime happening in front of the American public right now," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said. The proposed legislation would put a new 80-hour-per-month work requirement on certain able-bodied adults receiving Medicaid, aged 19 through 64. It would also put guardrails on states spending funds on their expanded Medicaid populations. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed states to expand Medicaid coverage to adults who make up to 138% of the poverty level. More specifically, states that provide Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants could see their federal Medicaid reimbursement dollars diminished, putting more of that cost on the state itself. The bill would also require states with expanded Medicaid populations to perform eligibility checks every six months to ensure the system is not being abused. The Energy & Commerce Committee, which has broad jurisdiction, including over federal health programs, telecommunications and energy, was tasked with finding at least $880 billion in spending cuts to pay for other priorities in Trump's "big, beautiful bill." Guthrie told House Republicans on a lawmaker-only call on Sunday night that the panel had found "north of $900 billion" in savings.
Newsweek
25-04-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Fired FTC Commissioners Call Out Trump's 'Radical' Reading of Constitution
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A representative for the two commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) dismissed by President Donald Trump in March has criticized the administration's legal arguments as a significant departure from established legal precedent. "The radical idea that the Constitution gives the president virtually unlimited power to fire independent commissioners at the FTC, the Fed, and other similar agencies has no basis in law," Amit Agarwal, special counsel at the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy, told Newsweek. "In fact, it ignores nearly a century of settled law that limits the circumstances under which a president can remove commissioners." Newsweek has reached out to Trump's legal counsel via email for comment. Why It Matters Trump's legal representatives have argued that the president's executive authorities grant him largely unrestricted removal power over agencies within the executive branch of government. However, Trump's efforts to oust high-ranking officials and lower-level staff from agencies such as the FTC or the National Labor Relations Board have faced substantial legal opposition, on the grounds that these actions represent an overly expansive interpretation of presidential powers. Alvaro Bedoya testifies during a House hearing in the Rayburn House office building in Washington on April 2, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on April... Alvaro Bedoya testifies during a House hearing in the Rayburn House office building in Washington on April 2, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on April 23, 2025, in Washington. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter sits before a House committee in the Rayburn House office building in Washington on March 26, 2025. More Annabelle Gordon / Alex Brandon / Mattie Neretin/Sipa via AP Images / AP Photo / Sipa via AP Images What To Know Agarwal is part of the legal team representing Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Martin Bedoya in their ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration and high-ranking officials at the FTC. According to their complaint filed late last month with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the two Democratic commissioners received a message from the president on March 18 that read: "Your continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration's priorities. Accordingly, I am removing you from office pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution." Slaughter and Bedoya are now arguing for their dismissals to be deemed unlawful and invalid, as they engaged in no "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," per Title 15 of the U.S. Code, which lays out the rules governing the removal of FTC commissioners. The two are requesting that they be permitted to return to their duties at the federal agency. In a filing with the Court on Wednesday, Trump's legal counsel argued that removing the two commissioners was well within his executive powers as laid out in the Constitution and established legal precedent, and that this action did not fall under the recognized exceptions to the president's "unrestricted removal power." They added that any order requiring him to reinstate the officials would amount to "an extraordinary intrusion on the President's exclusive authority to exercise control over the Executive Branch." Against this, however, Agarwal told Newsweek: "The extraordinary intrusion here is the President's attempt to give himself a power Congress withheld for good reason." What People Are Saying FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in March said that her removal violated "the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent," and that President Trump had fired her because he was "afraid of what I will tell the American people." President Donald Trump's legal counsel wrote: "Neither of the two narrow exceptions the Supreme Court has recognized to the President's otherwise unrestricted removal power—for inferior officers with limited authority and for multimember bodies that exercise functions that are legislative and judicial, rather than executive—applies here. FTC Commissioners must therefore be removable at will to ensure they, like the rest of the Executive Branch, are accountable to the people who elect the President. "The President cannot be compelled to retain the services of principal officers whom he no longer believes should be entrusted with the exercise of executive power." Amit Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy and part of the legal team representing Slaughter and Alvaro Martin Bedoya, told Newsweek: "Americans are seeing right now how much damage a president can do by wielding unchecked power over the economy. Congress wisely protected economic regulators like FTC commissioners and Fed members from political firing to prevent any president from using these powerful agencies to punish their enemies and enrich their friends. This isn't about Democrats vs. Republicans or liberals vs. conservatives—it's about a stable economy governed by laws rather than political whims." What Happens Next On Wednesday, Trump's legal team filed a motion for the court to deny Slaughter and Bedoya's lawsuit. Their dismissal remains in effect pending the court's ruling.
