Latest news with #Sheehy
The Hill
28-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump megabill in danger after fourth GOP senator threatens ‘no' vote on key motion
President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' appears to be in serious danger of stalling on the Senate floor after Montana Sen. Tim Sheehy (R) threatened to vote 'no' on a critical motion to proceed to the legislation because it includes language to sell millions of acres of public lands. 'I oppose the sale of public lands and will vote no on the motion to proceed if it is included,' Sheehy posted on X on Saturday afternoon after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told colleagues to expect a 4 p.m. vote to advance the measure. The legislation includes language sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) directing the secretary of the Interior to sell between 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent of public lands to build more housing throughout the American West. The provision directing the Bureau of Public Lands to sell millions of acres appears to exempt Montana, which was not among the 11 states named in the bill. Three other Republican senators have said they will either vote to proceed to the bill or final passage of the bill for various reasons: Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Thune can only afford three defections and still advance the bill. Republicans control 53 Senate seats. Tillis told reporters after a closed-door meeting with colleagues Saturday that he will vote against the bill because of steep cuts to federal Medicaid spending and urged GOP leaders to return to the Medicaid changes passed by the House last month. 'I'm going to vote no on motion to proceed and on final passage,' he said. 'I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form,' Tillis said in a statement released by his office. He said the bill 'would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities.' 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population,' he warned. Johnson said he's voting 'no' on the motion to proceed because he just got his copy of the legislation at 1:23 am and hasn't had a chance to read it carefully. He wants Senate Republican leaders to add substantially bigger spending cuts to the bill and has proposed targeting mandatory spending programs outside of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 'I'm not going to vote for motion to proceed today. We just got the bill. I got my first copy about 1:23 in the morning, this morning,' he said on 'Fox & Friends Weekend.' Paul is a hard 'no' vote because the legislation includes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion. Thune said his leadership team would know when the vote is held where exactly his colleagues stand on the bill. 'We'll get to the vote here before long and we'll answer all those questions,' he said when asked about the threatened 'no' votes from Sheehy, Tillis, Johnson and Paul.
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump gets divergent guidance from a party that's split over Iran
President Donald Trump is receiving wildly divergent guidance from a splintered Republican Party as he weighs a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Sen. Lindsey Graham and other hawks have told Trump to 'finish the job,' even if it means the US taking military action against nuclear facilities, according to the South Carolina Republican. Then there's the more nuanced view of Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., a former Navy SEAL who likened the current moment to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. He wants to prevent Iran from gaining access to a nuclear weapon but said it's 'completely unrealistic' for Republicans to argue the US can bomb Tehran's enrichment facilities at Fordow and call it a day. 'Wars are messy. They're long and they're unclear. Rarely will one single action spell the end of a conflict. Us taking out the nuclear capability, I don't think it's the endgame,' Sheehy told Semafor moments after sparring with a protester. 'As the president said, as pretty much everyone agrees — even that crazy Code Pink lady — I don't want them to have nuclear weapons.' Though he stands nearly alone, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is sending a harsher warning: that a pre-emptive strike would be unconstitutional and could draw the US or its allies into a messy war. The cacophony of voices reflects a Republican Party that's fractured over how closely to align with a president who has reshaped its ideology in his image. Even as the GOP divides over potential entanglement in the Middle East, the decision to more fully join Israel's campaign in Iran is Trump's alone. And most of the party will follow him, whatever he chooses. He insisted Wednesday afternoon that he wants to avoid 'long-term war' and seems unconcerned about those who might be 'a little bit unhappy now' over the possibility of the US getting more directly engaged. 'I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's it,' Trump told reporters Wednesday. One Pentagon official told Semafor that there was 'no indication' bombing action was close as of Wednesday, pointing to low US critical munitions reserves as 'a significant, even primary concern' that could deter a quick strike in the end. Meanwhile, his White House is seeking counsel from a wide range of advisers, and senators like Graham and Sheehy, as he considers a move that could reshape the course of his presidency. They're also hearing from what one Republican lawmaker called 'so-called influencers who have no influence.' Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and The War Room's Steve Bannon are making clear that they're against direct US military involvement against Iran (Trump said Carlson called him to apologize). But other pundits who have the president's ear, like radio host Mark Levin and Fox News' Sean Hannity, are more on the side of US involvement, to say nothing of GOP hawks in Congress who have long doubted that diplomacy with Iran can work. In fact, Trump's sheer openness to striking Iran shows how far his version of 'America First' has come from its non-interventionist origins. There are plenty of signs that Trump is listening to GOP hawks more than one might assume for someone who selected JD Vance as his vice president. Trump 'carries great respect' for the likes of older-lines Republican pundits like Levin and Fox News' Sean Hannity, 'perhaps more so' than more non-interventionist types like Charlie Kirk and his vice president, said a person close to the administration. The president is seeking to 'maintain flexibility, freedom of action. And I think now he realizes the costs for a strike are lower than they ever have been,' the Republican lawmaker said. 'If he wants, he can order strikes on Fordow, be sure that he's caved it all in — and at the end of it say: 'I consider the matter closed, we're done with offensive operations in Iran,'' the lawmaker added. Inside the administration, officials aren't completely aligned about next steps and what the broader implications might be. A sign of that debate: Trump held a Situation Room meeting on Tuesday afternoon that lasted just under an hour and a half, and came and went without any apparent final decisions on further US involvement. A second Situation Room meeting was planned for later Wednesday; Trump said he'd made no final decision but 'has ideas of what to do.' In between, Trump's gotten plenty of advice. 'If we have capability, Israel doesn't have to finish the job; we should finish the job. Diplomacy was offered; it didn't work,' Graham said. 'I've encouraged the president to provide Israel with what they need to finish the job. And if we need to fly as part of it, fly.' Many aides are very wary of getting ahead of Trump given his unpredictability. And plenty of senators are signaling they'd be happy to back him if he decides to get in deeper — even as far as the regime change he says he doesn't want. 'If this is the opportunity to do it and the best military advice recommended to the president is to bust those bunkers, then bust those bunkers and get the leadership out of Tehran. And give the Iranian people a chance to be free,' said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. Sheehy said he sees the US as already engaged in conflict with Iran, given its constant presence in other military conflicts on the opposing side and its stated goal of destroying America. No matter which way Trump falls on the weighty decision, Sheehy added, 'based on what he's done so far, I'll support him 100 percent either way.' 'What I don't want to see us do is see Israel get to 90 or 95% of the job done, and then the last piece that could probably end all of this doesn't happen, because we're not willing to engage a country that's said they want to destroy us,' added Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. Trump would have at least one prominent Democratic backer if he attacks Iran: Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who's unabashed in his support for a pre-emptive strike on nuclear facilities. The president might have more, depending on his sales job. An all-senators briefing is now scheduled for next week, according to an aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. 'This is a momentous decision, and I don't begrudge him taking the time to figure it out. I share the goal of making sure that Iran never possesses a nuclear program,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. 'We're getting conflicting views on that from Tulsi Gabbard and the president; it's difficult to know who to believe.' He coined his own term for Trump's position, calling it 'unstrategic ambiguity.' For the few overt non-interventionists like Paul in the GOP, the risks of striking Iran are clear. The Kentuckian warned it could lead to more entanglement, whether the president likes it or not. 'Who's going to occupy Iran? You think the Israelis will be welcome occupiers in Iran? Do you think Americans would be welcome occupiers of Iran? Nobody would be,' Paul said. Forecasting Trump's decisions is always a fool's errand, and his public statements on Wednesday only underscored his opaque approach. Summing up his will-he-or-won't he sentiment, he said Wednesday: 'I may do it. I may not do it. No one knows what I'm going to do.' If Trump does strike Iran, the vast majority of his party in Congress is going to support the initial effort to cripple nuclear capability. Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., are certain to dissent, but that otherwise will be a fairly limited crew of Republicans. Trump's support in both parties — and his presidency — could hinge on what happens next. There are few signs of support for a spiraling war in the Middle East after Iraq and Afghanistan, even as Republicans circulate polls showing their supporters want the US to support Israel. Steve Bannon that if Trump does decide to strike Iran, the MAGA wing opposing it will ultimately 'get on board.'
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Uncommon bonds: ‘Right to repair' in the military
The Defense Department spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually on government contracts for weapons, gear, and other systems. But intellectual property constraints often prevent the Pentagon from repairing its equipment, forcing it to rely on the original contractors to make the repairs. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., long a champion of so-called 'right to repair' in the US military, has found an ally in freshman Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., as she looks to shepherd through legislation to address what she sees as an expensive yet solvable problem. Warren and Sheehy don't have a bill yet, but they penned a Fox News op-ed recently that pushes for lifting restrictions on the ability of service members to fix their own equipment. They argued that the current situation is jeopardizing readiness, costing the Pentagon more money, and creating a lack of competition in the defense industry. Warren told Semafor that she and Sheehy — both members of the Armed Services Committee — decided to 'link up' after having a conversation about 'right to repair' in the military and the US economy more broadly. 'We had a long conversation about the importance of improving our acquisition practices for the Department of Defense, and he was really frustrated over the amount of waste that defense contractors were able to extract from DOD because the Defense Department was just doing such a poor job,' she said. Their goal, she said, is to get legislation into the base text for the next National Defense Authorization Act, the mammoth defense policy legislation that Congress typically passes towards the end of the year. Sheehy told Semafor he thinks more Republicans will eventually join him to back the legislation that the pair introduces. 'There's really bipartisan support right now to fix our defense sector,' he said. 'The Democrats have historically not been a pro-defense party. But since Ukraine, for some reason, that's woken them up to the fact that you can't build bullets, bombs, planes or ships as fast as China and Russia.' Warren introduced legislation last Congress that would have required the Pentagon to evaluate whether it could save money by acquiring intellectual property rights for systems it procures. That bill mandated that contractors provide 'fair and reasonable access' to materials and information needed for repairs. She also penned a letter to Elon Musk, then the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, in January encouraging him to look at the issue as a way to reduce Pentagon spending. One example Warren and Sheehy cited is the F-35 program. According to the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon's lack of access to intellectual property related to the military planes made by Lockheed Martin 'has limited its ability to manage the F-35 program in a cost-effective manner.' But there's also a tradeoff, GAO notes, because acquiring intellectual property rights costs the Pentagon more on the front end. The legislative efforts could irk major defense contractors, which rely on the federal government as a huge source of revenue. Warren and Sheehy have a powerful ally in Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, a friend and former adviser to Vice President JD Vance. Driscoll is overseeing a new Army initiative that seeks to advance acquisition reform and address intellectual property constraints. 'Over the last few decades, the Army has signed away its ability to repair its own equipment. Through the Army Transformation Initiative we are going to ensure that every contract going forward will enable our soldiers to repair their own equipment,' Driscoll told Semafor in a statement. 'Doing this will save taxpayer dollars and get equipment back on the battlefield faster. I'm thrilled this important issue has bipartisan support in Congress.' The Army's work is a sign that the White House may get behind the forthcoming legislation from Warren and Sheehy. 'They're very supportive of Driscoll's Army initiative,' Sheehy said of the White House. The issue of Pentagon contracts isn't the only one where President Donald Trump and Warren might see eye-to-eye.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Meet the Senate's bipartisan wildfire-fighting duo
A few months ago, Alex Padilla was trying to keep Tim Sheehy out of the US Senate. Now the two senators are emerging as a forceful bipartisan duo. The California Democrat and Montana Republican are collaborating on a series of bills intended to more aggressively fight the wildfire epidemic now gripping the country from coast to coast. They've bonded over raising kids as senators, shared drinks, and — yes — Padilla thinks Sheehy is an OK guy, despite defeating former Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., during Padilla's stint as a deputy on Democrats' campaign arm last year. 'Don't get me wrong: I love Big Jon. I miss Big Jon,' Padilla said, sitting beside Sheehy in a rare joint interview with Semafor. 'But the voters of Montana spoke. And I guess he's not as bad of a guy as I heard.' Fourteen new senators have been sworn in since the 2024 election, replacing departing bipartisan dealmakers. Senators are trying to rebuild cross-party relationships following that turnover, and Sheehy and Padilla show that it's possible. Sheehy is a former Navy SEAL serving in his first elected office; Padilla was an engineer before grinding his way through California politics to the Senate. The two met when Padilla spoke to new senators, just as wildfires were wreaking havoc on Los Angeles. Sheehy, who founded an aerial firefighting company in Montana, was an obvious partner for Padilla. 'If we can't agree on literally making sure that cities don't burn to the ground, then our republic is probably lost, you know?' Sheehy said. Semafor spoke to both senators about their partnership and the half-dozen bills they are working on together, which address forest management, wildfire coordination and readiness. This conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. Burgess Everett: How do you all stay connected on these issues amid everything that's happening in the Senate? Tim Sheehy: We share margaritas. And some beer. Alex Padilla: Modelo specifically. TS: We make the point on the floor always to pop over: 'Working on this, work on that.' We don't have a set meeting. It's not structured, but whenever we pass each other, make sure to give a quick update. AP: I have him captive when I see him in the chair [presiding over the Senate]. He can't run away from me. How are you toggling Republicans' for executive action from President Trump with your legislative drive? AP: I can't wait for a joint letter to the White House once the bills get through both the Senate and the House. The Senate version of the Fix Our Forests Act is probably the prime example of what the collaboration can and should lead to. TS: That bill is flying kind of under the radar so far. But the scope and the implications of that bill really will be vast. Fire is kind of the breaching tool to focus people's attention on why it's critical we get after it. But the impacts are far beyond just fire. It's going to bring back a lot of common-sense management for our lands. … It's going to help revive our struggling timber industry, where in certain areas it's blossomed on private land, but on public land, in many cases, it's been restricted. This legislation has been crafted in a bipartisan way. Fires burn blue states and red states equally, they don't care. One of the things you are trying to do is centralize the national fire response. Why? TS: We have to. We keep referring to the West, which obviously is still the epicenter for it. But let's not forget, just about a month and a half ago, that town that burned in New Jersey was in the 98th percentile of fire danger. It wasn't a surprise. … Lahaina, the deadliest fire since Camp Fire — that was 99th percentile fire danger. That town had been modeled as a severe fire risk. Nothing had been done about it. So the disjointed, localized approach that's being defended by a lot of folks? … The same people that walked us into this mess are not the same people that are gonna get us out of this mess. Do you talk about climate change as you two work on this? TS: For me, no. My background as a soldier is: I'm in the middle of a gunfight. While I'm in the middle of a gunfight, I'm not opining as to whether we should be where we're at … my job is to fight the fight and win. If climate change is the cause of all these fires — guess what? Whatever dials we turn on the climate will be 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 years down the line. And in the meantime, we owe our communities better protection than we're giving them now. AP: We have to do both. So I agree that the here and now has created a crisis, has created a sense of urgency, which is why we're doing this bill to be more strategic and effective in how we respond. But I do feel a responsibility to think: Why are there more frequent and larger wildfires? … California has been proudly a leader on things like the shift to renewable energy, electrification of the transportation system, just on and on and on to try to reduce emissions, because we also see how they're connected. In 2020 wildfires alone in California offset emission reductions that we had made for 20 years. TS: [In 2021] just two fires, the Dixie and the Caldor fires combined, emitted more carbon into the atmosphere than every single car in California. How do you get to the finish line on these bills, like the Fix Our Forests Act? AP: We're committed to each other. If there are amendments that we agree and help strengthen the bill, then great. But no poison pills that unravel this agreement, because it was a tough negotiation. … When we first announced it publicly, I got a message from [Rep. Bruce] Westerman on the House side. First positive message. OK, that's good. I can see the pathway to get out of the Senate, there's more than just hope on the House side.
Business Wire
19-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Mirum Pharmaceuticals Appoints Doug Sheehy, JD, as Chief Legal Officer
FOSTER CITY, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mirum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: MIRM) today announced the appointment of Doug Sheehy, JD, as chief legal officer. Mr. Sheehy brings nearly two decades of experience leading global legal and compliance operations for biopharmaceutical companies. Mr. Sheehy was most recently chief legal officer and secretary at Sonoma Biotherapeutics, Inc., which is developing regulatory T cell therapies for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Prior to Sonoma, from 2016 to 2020, he served as general counsel and secretary for Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company that specialized in the development and commercialization of treatments for life-threatening food allergies. Mr. Sheehy served at Aimmune until its acquisition by Nestle Health Science in 2020. Before Aimmune, from 2007-2016, he was executive vice president, chief administrative officer, general counsel, and secretary of Codexis, Inc., a company focused on the development of synthetic enzymes for the pharmaceutical and food industries. Earlier in his career, he served in several roles within the legal department at CV Therapeutics. Mr. Sheehy began his career as a corporate and securities lawyer in Silicon Valley representing emerging growth companies and venture funds. Mr. Sheehy received an A.B. in History from Dartmouth College and a J.D. from American University's Washington College of Law. 'Doug brings extensive global legal experience that will strengthen Mirum's capabilities as we continue to grow our commercial business and advance our rare disease pipeline,' said Chris Peetz, chief executive officer at Mirum. 'Doug will be a great addition to Mirum's leadership team, and I look forward to leveraging his experience in guiding transformative growth for the company.' 'Mirum is an impressive company that has established its place as a leader in rare disease, and I am excited to have the opportunity to join the leadership team and contribute to the exciting work underway,' said Doug Sheehy. 'The company has a focused growth strategy and is poised for continued success as it works to make a meaningful difference in the lives of people impacted by rare disease.' About Mirum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Mirum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to transforming the treatment of rare diseases affecting children and adults. Mirum has three approved medications: LIVMARLI® (maralixibat) oral solution/LIVMARLI® (maralixibat) tablets, CHOLBAM® (cholic acid) capsules, and CTEXLI™ (chenodiol) tablets. LIVMARLI, an IBAT inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of two rare liver diseases affecting children and adults. It is approved for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus in patients with Alagille syndrome in the U.S. (three months and older), in Europe (two months and older), and in other regions globally. It is also approved in the U.S. in cholestatic pruritus in PFIC patients 12 months of age and older; in Europe, it is approved for patients with PFIC three months of age and older. Mirum has initiated the Phase 3 EXPAND study, a label expansion opportunity for LIVMARLI in additional settings of cholestatic pruritus. CHOLBAM is FDA-approved for the treatment of bile acid synthesis disorders due to single enzyme deficiencies and adjunctive treatment of peroxisomal disorders in patients who show signs or symptoms of liver disease. CTEXLI is FDA-approved for the treatment of cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX) in adults. Mirum's late-stage pipeline includes two investigational treatments for several rare diseases. Volixibat, an IBAT inhibitor, is being evaluated in two potentially registrational studies including the Phase 2 VISTAS study for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and Phase 2b VANTAGE study for primary biliary cholangitis. Volixibat has been granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for the treatment of cholestatic pruritus in patients with PBC. Mirum is also planning for a Phase 2 study evaluating MRM-3379, a PDE4D inhibitor for the treatment of Fragile X syndrome, a rare genetic neurocognitive disorder. To learn more about Mirum, visit and follow Mirum on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter (X).
