Latest news with #WarrenDavidson
Politico
16-07-2025
- Business
- Politico
Crypto chaos crashes the House
Presented by Editor's note: Morning Money is a free version of POLITICO Pro Financial Services morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 5:15 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the day's biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro. Quick Fix The House has been thrust into a sudden state of crypto chaos. Conservative hardliners staged an unexpected rebellion on the House floor that brought down a procedural vote to allow the chamber to take up a slate of digital assets bills, briefly hijacking a long-planned 'crypto week' from GOP leaders in a bid to avoid getting jammed by the Senate. And then, in a story that is becoming increasingly familiar about this House Republican conference, President Donald Trump swooped in and got the holdouts to flip. This time, he apparently made quick work of it. The president wrote on Truth Social late Tuesday that after a 'short' Oval Office discussion, the holdouts 'have all agreed to vote tomorrow morning in favor of the Rule,' referring to the procedural measure that the House must adopt to begin debate on legislation. The surprise vote on the floor Tuesday represented another setback in an increasingly fraught GOP-led legislative push to enact industry-friendly crypto regulations that has become rife with drama and intra-party tensions on both sides of the aisle. The main source of the GOP rebels' objection was ostensibly a move by House Republican leaders to accept a Senate-passed bill to regulate so-called stablecoins without changes. Some hardliners said they were concerned that the measure would become law without banning a central bank digital currency, which is a government-issued digital dollar that conservatives say would open the door to privacy invasions. But the move was also indicative of broader frustrations among House conservatives over getting repeatedly jammed by the Senate. Republicans in the upper chamber forced the House to accept their approach to the 'big, beautiful bill' and are eyeing changes to a House-passed rescissions package. 'The House is kind of used to not really being given any deference when we send things to the Senate. There are people that are sort of frustrated with that,' said Rep. Warren Davidson, an Ohio Republican who sometimes aligns with conservative hardliners but voted 'yes' on the procedural vote Tuesday. 'Some of it's just an anti-just-take-whatever-the-Senate-sends-you-and-do-it sentiment.' House GOP leaders, including Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.), considered packaging stablecoin legislation with a broader crypto market structure overhaul, but they opted to send the Senate's bill to Trump's desk as-is following a public pressure campaign by the president and Senate Republicans who want a quick win. The House is set to vote today on the Senate stablecoin measure, known as the GENIUS Act, according to a statement Tuesday night from House Speaker Mike Johnson. He added that the House will advance additional crypto legislation — which includes Hill's sweeping market structure bill and a CBDC ban bill — 'in the coming days.' (GOP leaders had initially planned to vote on the GENIUS bill Thursday and the other two measures today.) Now, all eyes will turn to House Democrats, who are expected to split over the bills. As your host reported Tuesday, GOP leaders are facing headaches with them, too. Hill's market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, is in danger of winning fewer Democratic votes than a similar GOP-led proposal earned on the floor last year, an outcome that could damage the measure's viability in the Senate. The GENIUS bill, however, is poised for a big bipartisan vote. 'Stablecoin has often been less controversial than market structure,' Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who supports both measures, told MM. 'And Donald Trump has made market structure more controversial, not less.' IT'S WEDNESDAY — What do you make of this crypto mess? Let me know at jgoodman@ As always, send MM tips and pitches to Sam at ssutton@ Driving the day Fed Governor Michael Barr speaks at a Brookings Institution discussion on 'Booms, Busts, and Financial Regulation' at 10 a.m. … House Financial Services' National Security subcommittee holds a hearing on 'U.S. Policy on Investment Security' at 10 a.m. … Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) speaks at the Exchequer Club at 12:30 p.m. … The National Bureau of Economic Research holds its SI 2025 Digital Economics and Artificial Intelligence Conference beginning at 1:30 p.m. … House Financial Services' Housing and Insurance subcommittee holds a hearing on 'Modern Solutions to the Housing Shortage' at 2 p.m. … PCAOB chair to step down — Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Chair Erica Williams told staff in an email Tuesday that she is stepping down from the top U.S. audit watchdog after SEC Chair Paul Atkins asked for her resignation, Declan Harty reports. Williams, a former SEC staffer who took over as PCAOB chair nearly four years ago, will leave the board next week, according to the email, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. In her email, Williams wrote that while staff may have questions about what is next for the PCAOB, she does 'not have the answers you deserve.' Bessent wants Powell out next year — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested Tuesday that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell should step down from the central bank's board when his term as chair is up in May 2026. Powell's term as a Fed governor isn't up until January 2028. 'Traditionally, the Fed chair also steps down as a governor,' Bessent said in an interview on Bloomberg TV. 'There's been a lot of talk of a shadow Fed chair causing confusion in advance of his or her nomination. And I can tell you, I think it'd be very confusing for the market for a former Fed chair to stay on also.' Trade Concerns over Nvidia reversal — Lawmakers pledged to get answers after the Trump administration appeared to clear the way for reversing earlier curbs on the sale of some semiconductors from Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to China, per Ari Hawkins and Anthony Adragna. 'I'll be seeking clarification from Commerce regarding NVIDIA's statement,' the chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), said in a statement to POLITICO. 'I strongly supported the Commerce Department's decision earlier this year to restrict exports of the H20 chip to China.' Inflation up, Trump still wants rates down — Inflation rose in June as Trump's tariffs began to push up the prices of certain goods, undermining his attempts to pressure Fed Chair Powell to lower interest rates, Sam reports. Trump's tariff rush — Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are rushing to conclude an unprecedented number of national security tariff investigations, which is raising concerns among trade experts about the integrity of probes that could lead to levies on hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of imports in key sectors like commercial aircraft, microchips and medicine, per Doug Palmer. On The Hill Dodd-Frank turns 15 — House Financial Services Republicans continued to voice concern over the burdens that small and community banks face from restrictions under the Dodd-Frank law during a hearing exploring the past 15 years and the future of the law, Katherine reports. GOP members of the committee pushed for Congress to regain additional control over the CFPB and FSOC. The panel has put forward three dozen bills for consideration regarding Dodd-Frank. Small Business Democrats push against SBA policy changes — Small Business ranking members Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) pressed SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler for answers on expected field office closures in 'sanctuary cities' and restricting 7(a) and 504 loans, and microloans exclusively to U.S. citizens. 'The combined loan-policy and office-closure actions are unacceptable and will hurt both immigrant communities and the U.S. economy,' the lawmakers write in the letter released Tuesday. Senate confirms Pettit to senior Treasury post — The Senate confirmed Luke Pettit, former senior policy adviser to Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), by a vote of 69-30 to serve as Treasury's assistant secretary for financial institutions, per Adam Behsudi. FSB chief Bailey backs Trump banking cop — The head of the Financial Stability Board is backing a former Trump-appointed banking regulator after a senior U.S. lawmaker called for him to be dismissed from the global financial watchdog, Kathryn Carlson reports. In a letter to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, obtained by POLITICO, FSB chair Andrew Bailey said Randal Quarles, who last month was chosen to lead a worldwide review of post-2008 financial crisis reforms for the body, is 'a highly regarded previous Chair of the FSB.' At the regulators DOJ and CFTC drop Polymarket probes — Federal authorities have dropped a pair of investigations into the betting market startup Polymarket — some of the last vestiges of a Biden-era crackdown against the high-flying industry of prediction markets, per Declan. The Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission sent Polymarket formal letters saying they would be ending their probes into the company, according to a person familiar with the investigations who was granted anonymity to discuss the letters. Wall Street Dimon defends Fed independence — 'JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sounded Wall Street's clearest warning against the Trump administration's attacks on the Fed's Powell, describing the central bank's independence as crucial,' per the Wall Street Journal. 'I think the independence of the Fed is absolutely critical,' Dimon told media members in a call after the bank's earnings announcement. 'Playing around with the Fed can have adverse consequences, the absolute opposite of what you might be hoping for.' —Trump vibe check: When asked whether the Fed's headquarter renovation saga was a fireable offense, he said: '"I think it sort of is.' Jobs report Eric Morrissette, a former acting under secretary of Commerce overseeing the Minority Business Development Agency during the Biden-Harris administration, and Narda Jones, former chief of staff at the Federal Communications Commission, have joined the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies as fellows.
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Davidson flips to ‘yes' on Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), who in May voted against the House GOP's version of President Trump's megabill, said Wednesday that he's a 'yes' on the Senate-passed legislation. 'I got to say, no one puts a deal together like President Trump, he's a master. But I think one of the other persuasive things was just looking at the Democrats' reaction to it,' he said. 'Maybe the bill is better than I thought. Democrats' reaction helped me persuade that, wow, maybe this bill does, does do some really good things.' Davidson said he spoke with Trump a 'couple times before changing' his vote. Davidson previously opposed the House bill for not being more aggressive in cutting spending. He was one of two Republicans to vote 'no' when the House passed the measure in May, 215-214. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) also opposed the bill, while Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) voted 'present.' But some House conservatives have strongly criticized the Senate plan, which they say would add hundreds of billions of dollars more to the nation's deficits than the House plan would. Deficit hawks this week threatened to tank a procedural vote on advancing the bill, and the House is in a holding pattern as GOP leadership works to win them over. Discussing his decision to back the new plan, Davidson said, 'I think the reality is I wanted to give us a chance to get a better product.' 'The time hasn't been used as well as I wish it would have been. There are some things that people negotiated for and made progress. I mean, the SALT got less expensive,' he said, referring to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. 'In some ways, the Medicaid reforms got more aggressive, which is, to me, a good thing,' Davidson said. 'I think this is probably the best product we can get, and I want to do as much as I can to help President Trump and the team get this bill across the finish line.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
BBC News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Did President Trump have legal authority to launch Iran strikes?
Since US President Donald Trump ordered strikes on several nuclear facilities in Iran over the weekend, Democrats as well as lawmakers from his own party have questioned his authority to do Congressman Thomas Massie said on X that the strikes were "not Constitutional", and another Republican Congressman Warren Davidson wrote "it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional".But Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson defended the president, saying he "evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act" and that there's "tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties".BBC Verify has asked legal experts whether Trump's actions were in line with the Constitution or whether he should have consulted Congress first. What does the Constitution say about military action? There are two parts of the US Constitution that are relevant here: Article I and Article I specifically lists the ability "to declare war" as one of Congress' Article II - which lays out the president's powers - says that "the president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army", and sources at the White House have told the BBC they see this as the rationale for the strikes on experts have said that Article II could be interpreted as giving the president the authority to use military force in certain circumstances aren't specifically laid out in the Constitution - but they have been subsequently interpreted to include "actual or anticipated attacks," or to "advance other important national interests" according to experts at the Council for Foreign interests could include the prevention of nuclear proliferation - which Trump administration said was their justification for the strikes on constitutional experts told BBC Verify that Trump had some authority under these circumstances to order the military strikes on Iran."The short answer is yes, he did have the authority here," says Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "There is a long standing practice of presidents engaging in isolated military engagements without congressional approval." Another constitutional law expert, Jessica Levinson at Loyola Marymount University, said the president has limited authority to authorise air strikes as long as it "doesn't begin to resemble a war, and there is no clear definition of when that occurs".However, Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College, told BBC Verify he didn't believe Trump had the authority to launch the latest strikes as there wasn't a sudden attack to Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, the provision has rarely been last time Congress evoked this power was in 1942 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor during the Second World War. Before this point it had been used on just 10 occasions since experts also told us that presidents using their authority to order military actions without getting approval from Congress has become more Bellinger, who was a legal adviser in the White House under President George W Bush, said: "Over the last several decades, Congress has acquiesced more and more in presidential uses of military force for a variety of purposes without congressional authorisation.""Congress and the courts have effectively negated the requirement of a declaration," Jonathan Turley, a conservative constitutional expert, told BBC Verify. What have other presidents done? President Barack Obama authorised airstrikes in Libya without requesting permission from Congress, which his administration justified under Article II, as was the case for the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in during Trump's first term in office, he ordered the killing of Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani without congressional President Bill Clinton launched strikes in the Balkans in the 1990s without prior approval, and more recently, Joe Biden did the same when hitting Houthi targets in Yemen as well as in Syria during his presidency. "This authority has been repeatedly used by presidents throughout our history," said Mr Turley."In 2016, Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs from Syria to Libya to Somalia without such calls for impeachment. History and precedent favours Trump in this action."Speaker Johnson cited examples by previous presidents when defending Trump, saying: "Presidents of both parties have acted with the same commander in chief authority under Article II.""President Obama went on an eight month campaign bombing Libya to take down the regime there. I never heard a Democrat balk about any of that, and suddenly, now this, they're just up in arms. It's all politics." What about other laws? Critics of Trump's strikes on Iran have also pointed to the War Powers Resolution which was passed in 1973 following America's withdrawal from the Vietnam War to limit the president's ability to wage war without consulting Congress the law does allow the president to use force without Congressional approval in emergencies, it states that they should "in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities"."It does not appear that President Trump complied with this requirement," says Mr Bellinger. "Based on reporting so far, it appears that President Trump did not actually have substantive consultations with Congress, but rather simply informed several Republican leaders."US media has reported that Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had been called about an an hour before the strikes began but with little White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X that the administration made "bipartisan courtesy calls to Congressional leadership" and spoke to Senator Schumer in advance of the resolution also says that Congress must be notified within 48 hours after military action has taken of Defense Pete Hegseth said that Congress "were notified after the planes were safely out" and that they "complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act". What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
Yahoo
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional,' Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. 'I look forward to his remarks tonight.' Follow along for live coverage Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: 'This is not Constitutional.' Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran 'unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran' passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as 'grossly unconstitutional.' 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right,' Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in 'no more war!' chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is 'absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,' she said on X. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: 'This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to 'grow a spine' and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,' he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. 'The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional,' said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. 'In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation.' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., responded by endorsing a resolution by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., to require congressional approval for Trump to take military action in Iran. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it.' At least one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, commended the strikes. "As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS," Fetterman wrote on X. "Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base,' he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Superintelligent CEO warns of complication ahead for crypto regulation
Superintelligent CEO warns of complication ahead for crypto regulation originally appeared on TheStreet. Superintelligent founder and CEO Nathaniel Whittemore hailed the passage of the GENIUS Act, that deals with stablecoin regulation, in the Senate as 'encouraging.' Speaking to TheStreet Roundtable host Scott Melker, Whittemore said it has been remarkable for the legislation to secure a 'bipartisan consensus,' given the kind of noise it generated toward the end. However, Whittemore flagged one potential complication ahead for crypto regulation in the U.S. He said that he didn't find the attempts by a lot of people, including Representative Warren Davidson (Rep.-R-OH-8), to combine the crypto market structure bill to the stablecoin bill, logical. Melker agreed, calling it a 'disaster' because the market structure bill is far more complicated than the stablecoin bill as it's going to deal with a number of issues, such as how to distinguish between a security and a commodity, how crypto exchanges operate, etc. 'That's no way that gets done by August if they do that,' Melker added. Whittemore agreed how the market structure bill is far broader in its scope. He gave the example of Congressman Tom Emmer (R-MN) introducing a bill to address the securities versus commodities designation and underlined how leaders have tried to introduce parts of the market structure bill as separate bills because tackling the broader bill is 'such a big thorny issue.' The two also discussed the promising performance of the Circle (NYSE: CRCL) stock around the time the GENIUS Act passed. Circle is the company behind the USDC stablecoin that went public on June 5. Its stock surged past the $200 price mark following the GENIUS ACT passing the Senate. At press time, it was trading at $241.80. Melker praised the company for capturing 'this perfect moment in time' when there was a thirst among investors for stablecoins. Whittemore concurred, saying all the market cared about was exposure to stablecoins. The more the Circle stock rises, the more institutions will get involved, he said and underlined that it consolidates Circle's position as a legitimate and regulated stablecoin in the U.S. Superintelligent CEO warns of complication ahead for crypto regulation first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 20, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 20, 2025, where it first appeared. Sign in to access your portfolio
