ReportWire

Tag: Legislation

  • US Government on Brink of First Shutdown in Almost Seven Years Amid Partisan Standoff in Congress

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A partisan standoff over heath care and spending is threatening to trigger the first U.S. government shutdown in almost seven years, with Democrats and Republicans in Congress unable to find agreement even as thousands of federal workers stand to be furloughed or permanently laid off.

    The government will shut down at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday if the Senate does not pass a House measure that would extend federal funding for seven weeks while lawmakers finish their work on annual spending bills. Senate Democrats say they won’t vote for it unless Republicans include an extension of expiring health care benefits, among other demands, while President Donald Trump and Republicans are refusing to negotiate at all, arguing that it is a stripped down, “clean” bill that should be noncontroversial.

    It was unclear, so far, if either side would blink before the deadline.

    “It’s now in the president’s hands,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Monday after a meeting with Trump at the White House that yielded little apparent progress. “He can avoid the shutdown if he gets the Republican leaders to go along with what we want.”

    Vice President JD Vance, who was also in the meeting, said afterward, “I think we’re headed into a shutdown, because the Democrats won’t do the right thing.”

    While partisan stalemates over government spending are a frequent occurrence in Washington, the current impasse comes as Democrats see a rare opportunity to use their leverage to achieve policy goals and as their base voters are spoiling for a fight with Trump. Republicans who hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate will likely need at least eight votes from Democrats to end a filibuster and pass the bill with 60 votes, since Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is expected to vote against it.


    No agreement at the White House

    Trump had shown little interest in entertaining Democrats’ demands on health care, even as he agreed to hold a sit-down meeting Monday with Schumer, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

    As he headed into the meeting, Trump made it clear he had no intention to negotiate on Democrats’ current terms.

    “Their ideas are not very good ones,” Trump said.

    It was Trump’s first meeting with all four leaders in Congress since retaking the White House for his second term, and he did more listening than talking, Jeffries told House Democrats at the Capitol afterward, according to a lawmaker who attended the private caucus meeting and requested anonymity to discuss it.

    Schumer said after the closed-door meeting that they had “had candid, frank discussions” with Trump about health care. Vance also said Trump found several points of agreement on policy ideas.

    Schumer said Trump “was not aware” of the potential for health insurance costs to skyrocket once the subsidies end Dec. 31.

    But Trump did not appear to be ready for serious negotiations. Hours later, Trump posted a fake video of Schumer and Jeffries taken from footage of their real press conference outside of the White House after the meeting. In the altered video, a voiceover that sounds like Schumer’s voice makes fun of Democrats and Jeffries stands beside him with a cartoon sombrero and mustache. Mexican music plays in the background.

    Jeffries posted in response that “Bigotry will get you nowhere.”

    He added, “We are NOT backing down.”


    Expiring health care subsidies

    Democrats are pushing for an extension to Affordable Care Act tax credits that have boosted health insurance subsidies for millions of people since the COVID-19 pandemic. The credits, which are designed to expand coverage for low- and middle-income people, are set to expire at the end of the year.

    “We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the health care of everyday Americans,” Jeffries said.

    Thune has pressed Democrats to vote for the funding bill and take up the debate on tax credits later. Some Republicans are open to extending the tax credits, but they want to place new limits on them.

    “We’re willing to sit down and work with them on some of the issues they want to talk about,” Thune told reporters at the White House, adding, “But as of right now, this is a hijacking of the American people, and it’s the American people who are going to pay the price.”


    A crucial, and unusual, vote for Democrats

    Democrats are in an uncomfortable position for a party that has long denounced shutdowns as pointless and destructive, and it’s unclear how or when it would end. But party activists and voters have argued that Democrats need to do something to stand up to Trump.

    Some groups called for Schumer’s resignation in March after he and nine other Democrats voted to break a filibuster and allow a Republican-led funding bill to advance to a final vote.

    Schumer said he voted to keep the government open because a shutdown would have made things worse as Trump’s administration was slashing government jobs. He says things have changed since then, including the passage of the massive GOP tax cut bill this summer that reduced Medicaid.

    Some of the Democrats who voted with Schumer in March to keep the government open were still holding out hope for a compromise. Michigan Sen. Gary Peters said Monday that there is still time before the early Wednesday deadline.

    “A lot can happen in this place in a short period of time,” Peters said.


    Shutdown preparations begin

    Federal agencies were sending out contingency plans if funding lapses, including details on what offices would stay open and which employees would be furloughed. In its instructions to agencies, the White House has suggested that a shutdown could lead to broad layoffs across the government.

    Russ Vought, Trump’s budget director, told reporters at the White House that a shutdown would be managed “appropriately, but it is something that can all be avoided” if Senate Democrats accepted the House-passed bill.

    Before joining the administration, Vought had advised hardline conservatives in Congress to use the prospect of a shutdown to negotiate for policy concessions. But on Monday, he berated Democrats for engaging in a similar ploy.

    “This is hostage taking. It is not something that we are going to accept,” he said.

    Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim, Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti in Washington contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs landmark bill creating AI safety measures

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed a law that aims to prevent people from using powerful artificial intelligence models for potentially catastrophic activities like building a bioweapon or shutting down a bank system.

    The move comes as Newsom touted California as a leader in AI regulation and criticized the inaction at the federal level in a recent conversation with former President Bill Clinton. The new law will establish some of the first-in-the-nation regulations on large-scale AI models without hurting the state’s homegrown industry, Newsom said. Many of the world’s top AI companies are located in California and will have to follow the requirements.

    “California has proven that we can establish regulations to protect our communities while also ensuring that the growing AI industry continues to thrive. This legislation strikes that balance,” Newsom said in a statement.

    The legislation requires AI companies to implement and disclose publicly safety protocols to prevent their most advanced models from being used to cause major harm. The rules are designed to cover AI systems if they meet a “frontier” threshold that signals they run on a huge amount of computing power.

    Such thresholds are based on how many calculations the computers are performing. Those who crafted the regulations have acknowledged the numerical thresholds are an imperfect starting point to distinguish today’s highest-performing generative AI systems from the next generation that could be even more powerful. The existing systems are largely made by California-based companies like Anthropic, Google, Meta Platforms and OpenAI.

    The legislation defines a catastrophic risk as something that would cause at least $1 billion in damage or more than 50 injuries or deaths. It’s designed to guard against AI being used for activities that could cause mass disruption, such as hacking into a power grid.

    Companies also have to report to the state any critical safety incidents within 15 days. The law creates whistleblower protections for AI workers and establishes a public cloud for researchers. It includes a fine of $1 million per violation.

    It drew opposition from some tech companies, which argued that AI legislation should be done at the federal level. But Anthropic said the regulations are “practical safeguards” that make official the safety practices many companies are already doing voluntarily.

    “While federal standards remain essential to avoid a patchwork of state regulations, California has created a strong framework that balances public safety with continued innovation,” Jack Clark, co-founder and head of policy at Anthropic, said in a statement.

    The signing comes after Newsom last year vetoed a broader version of the legislation, siding with tech companies that said the requirements were too rigid and would have hampered innovation. Newsom instead asked a group of several industry experts, including AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li, to develop recommendations on guardrails around powerful AI models.

    The new law incorporates recommendations and feedback from Newsom’s group of AI experts and the industry, supporters said. The legislation also doesn’t put the same level of reporting requirements on startups to avoid hurting innovation, said state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, the bill’s author.

    “With this law, California is stepping up, once again, as a global leader on both technology innovation and safety,” Wiener said in a statement.

    Newsom’s decision comes as President Donald Trump in July announced a plan to eliminate what his administration sees as “onerous” regulations to speed up AI innovation and cement the U.S.’ position as the global AI leader. Republicans in Congress earlier this year unsuccessfully tried to ban states and localities from regulating AI for a decade.

    Without stronger federal regulations, states across the country have spent the last few years trying to rein in the technology, tackling everything from deepfakes in elections to AI “therapy.” In California, the Legislature this year passed a number of bills to address safety concerns around AI chatbots for children and the use of AI in the workplace.

    California has also been an early adopter of AI technologies. The state has deployed generative AI tools to spot wildfires and address highway congestion and road safety, among other things.

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Matt O’Brien contributed to the report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government shutdown draws closer as congressional leaders head to the White House

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Democratic and Republican congressional leaders are heading to the White House for a meeting with President Donald Trump on Monday in a late effort to avoid a government shutdown, but both sides have shown hardly any willingness to budge from their entrenched positions.

    If government funding legislation is not passed by Congress and signed by Trump on Tuesday night, many government offices across the nation will be temporarily shuttered and non-exempt federal employees will be furloughed, adding to the strain on workers and the nation’s economy.

    Republicans are daring Democrats to vote against legislation that would keep government funding mostly at current levels, but Democrats so far have held firm. They are using one of their few points of leverage to demand that Congress take up legislation to extend health care benefits.

    “The meeting is a first step, but only a first step. We need a serious negotiation,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said in an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    Trump has shown little interest in entertaining Democrats’ demands on health care, even as he agreed to hold a sit-down meeting Monday afternoon with Schumer, along with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries. The Republican president has said repeatedly that he fully expects the government to enter a shutdown this week.

    “If it has to shut down, it’ll have to shut down,” Trump said Friday. “But they’re the ones that are shutting down government.”

    The Trump administration has tried to pressure Democratic lawmakers into backing away from their demands, warning that federal employees could be permanently laid off in the midst of a funding lapse.

    “Chuck Schumer said a few months ago that a government shutdown would be chaotic, harmful and painful. He’s right, and that’s why we shouldn’t do it,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

    Still, Democrats argued that Trump’s agreement to hold a meeting shows that he is feeling the pressure to negotiate. They say that because Republicans control the White House and Congress, Americans will mostly blame them for any shutdown.

    But to hold on to their negotiating leverage, Senate Democrats will likely have to vote against a bill to temporarily extend government funding on Tuesday, just hours before a shutdown — an uncomfortable position for a party that has long denounced shutdowns as pointless and destructive.

    The bill has already passed the Republican-controlled House and would keep the government funded for seven more weeks while Congress works on annual spending legislation.

    Any legislation to fund the government will need support from at least 60 senators. That means that at least eight Democrats would have to vote for the short-term funding bill, because Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is expected to vote against it.

    During the last potential government shutdown in March, Schumer and nine other Democrats voted to break a filibuster and allow a Republican-led funding bill to advance to a final vote. The New York Democrat faced fierce backlash from many in his own party for that decision, with some even calling for him to step down as Democratic leader.

    This time, Schumer appears resolute.

    “We’re hearing from the American people that they need help on health care and as for these massive layoffs, guess what? Simple one-sentence answer: They’re doing it anyway,” he said.

    Democrats are pushing for an extension to Affordable Care Act tax credits that have subsidized health insurance for millions of people since the COVID-19 pandemic. The credits, which are designed to expand coverage for low- and middle-income people, are set to expire at the end of the year.

    Some Republicans are open to extending the tax credits, but want changes. Thune said Sunday that the program is “desperately in need of reform” and Republicans want to address “waste, fraud and abuse.” He has pressed Democrats to vote for the funding bill and take up the debate on tax credits at a later date.

    It remains to be seen whether the White House meeting will help or hurt the chances for a resolution. Negotiations between Trump and Democratic congressional leaders have rarely gone well, and Trump has had little contact with the opposing party during his second term.

    The most recent negotiation in August between Schumer and the president to speed the pace of Senate confirmation votes for administration officials ended with Trump telling Schumer to “go to hell” in a social media post.

    Trump also abruptly canceled a meeting that was planned with congressional leaders last week, calling Democrats’ demands “unserious and ridiculous.”

    Schumer argued that the White House coming back to reschedule a meeting for Monday showed that “they felt the heat.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Campaign delays push to expand Medicaid in Florida until 2028, citing new state law

    [ad_1]

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A campaign to expand Medicaid in Florida is delaying its push to get the issue on the ballot until 2028, citing a new state law restricting the process to get constitutional amendments before voters.

    The group Florida Decides Healthcare had been working to get the measure on the 2026 ballot, while challenging the law in a federal court. That case is slated to go to trial in January.

    On Thursday, the campaign said that by passing the new law known as H.B. 1205, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the GOP-controlled Legislature “changed the ballot initiative rules mid-campaign” in a way that “deliberately undermined” the group’s push to gather enough petition signatures from Florida voters to get the measure on the 2026 ballot.

    “HB 1205 imposed roadblocks that made signature gathering nearly impossible on a 2026 timeline,” the campaign said in a statement.

    Representatives for DeSantis did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The law signed by DeSantis in May sets new limits on how many petitions Florida voters can collect in their effort to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot, a provision punishable by a felony if voters violate it. The measure also bars non-U.S. citizens and non-Florida residents from gathering signed petitions for ballot initiatives.

    The Florida Legislature pushed the changes months after a majority of the state’s voters supported ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights and legalize recreational marijuana, though the measures fell short of the 60% needed to pass. Lawmakers argued that the restrictions are needed to reform a process they claim has been tainted by fraud.

    “HB 1205 wasn’t about transparency, it was sabotage aimed directly at citizen-led ballot initiatives. This law may have delayed us until 2028, but it will not stop us,” said Mitch Emerson, executive director of Florida Decides Healthcare.

    Nearly 150 bills were introduced across 15 state legislatures this year seeking to make it harder for initiatives to qualify for the ballot or win approval by voters — nearly double the amount of just two years ago, according to the Fairness Project, a progressive group that has backed dozens of ballot initiatives in states. Voting rights advocates say the trend betrays the promise of direct democracy.

    ___

    Kate Payne is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oracle will manage TikTok’s algorithm for US users under Trump administration deal

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Tech giant Oracle will receive a copy of the algorithm powering TikTok to operate for U.S. users, according to a senior official in President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday.

    Determining next steps for the algorithm, currently owned by the Beijing-based ByteDance, has been one of the most closely watched issues during negotiations over TikTok’s future.

    The Trump administration official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the emerging deal, said they believe the plan will satisfy national security concerns if TikTok divests from its Chinese parent, ByteDance. President Joe Biden signed bipartisan legislation before leaving office requiring the Chinese company to sell its assets to an American company or face a ban.

    American officials have previously warned the algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.

    “It wouldn’t be in compliance if the algorithm is Chinese. There can’t be any shared algorithm with ByteDance,” said a spokesperson for the House Select Committee on China.

    Oracle would receive a copy of the algorithm and oversee the app’s security operations.

    The algorithm would be “fully inspected and retrained,” the senior White House official said Monday. In a call with reporters, the official later emphasized that the content recommendation formula would be retrained only on U.S. data in order to make sure the system is “behaving appropriately.” It is currently unclear if retraining the U.S. copy of the algorithm on local data would essentially create a separate TikTok experience just for domestic users.

    “What the president will sign later this week is an executive order, essentially declaring that the terms of this deal meets America’s national security needs,” the White House official said. He notes that China is expected to sign and approve a framework deal for TikTok’s divestment by the end of the week, upon which Trump will issue a 120 day reprieve, giving both nations time to get necessary agreements finalized.

    Full details on investors have not been released. However, the official confirmed that the U.S. operations will be a new joint venture with a board of directors that will have a majority of American members — Oracle and Silver Lake, a private equity firm, are the only confirmed consortium participants so far.

    The White House official also said that under the preliminary deal — which still requires Chinese officials to sign off on a framework agreement — the United States will not take equity stake in the new venture or have representation on the controlling committee.

    Trump, a Republican, has extended the deadline several times as he worked to reach a deal to keep TikTok available. He spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump reveals Murdochs and Dell could potentially take part in TikTok deal

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said prominent billionaires – including media mogul Rupert Murdoch and tech founder Michael Dell – could be part of a deal in which the U.S. will take control of the social video platform TikTok.

    Trump namedropped the 94-year-old Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch, the head of Fox News and News Corp, as part of a group of possible participants in a deal during an interview recorded Friday and aired Sunday on Fox News.

    “I think they’re going to be in the group. A couple of others. Really great people, very prominent people,” Trump said. “And they’re also American patriots, you know, they love this country. I think they’re going to do a really good job.”

    Trump’s disclosure of the potential involvement of the Murdochs and Dell, the founder and CEO of Dell Technologies, is the latest twist in a fast-moving potential deal to keep TikTok operating in the U.S.

    Trump also said Sunday that tech giant Oracle founder and CEO Larry Ellison was part of the same group. His involvement had been previously disclosed. On Saturday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Oracle would be responsible for the app’s data and security and that Americans will control six of the seven seats for a planned board.

    Much is still unknown about the actual deal in the works. Trump discussed the TikTok deal with China’s Xi Jinping in a lengthy phone call on Friday. Chinese and U.S. officials have until Dec. 16 to hash out the details, following the latest deadline extension by the Trump administration.

    TikTok is a hugely popular app currently owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance. American officials have warned the algorithm TikTok uses to shape what users see is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to push content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.

    Congress passed legislation calling for a TikTok ban to go into effect in January, but Trump has repeatedly signed orders that have allowed TikTok to keep operating in the United States as his administration tries to reach an agreement for the social media company’s parent company to sell its U.S. operations.

    On Sunday, Trump said that he was “a little prejudiced” about TikTok because he credited the app for helping him connect with young voters. Trump said slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk encouraged the president to use the app.

    Representatives for Ellison, Dell and the Murdochs could not immediately be reached for comment.

    Trump filed a lawsuit against Murdoch and one of his newspapers, The Wall Street Journal, in July after it published a story reporting on the president’s ties to wealthy financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New California law banning officers, agents from covering their faces sparks enforcement debate

    [ad_1]

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt. Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.”ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government. “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X. As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    California has become the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while on duty.

    Governor Gavin Newsom signed what sponsors have called the “No Secret Police Act” into law on Saturday.

    The law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2026, makes exceptions for the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed with the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity. The California Highway Patrol is also exempt.

    Officers who violate the law could face charges or lose their qualified immunity.

    The bill was a direct response to recent immigration raids in California, where federal agents wore masks while making arrests.

    “ICE. Unmask. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of? You’re going to go out and you’re going to do enforcement. Provide an ID,” Newsom said Saturday at a news conference in Los Angeles.

    Right now, it’s not clear how or if state can enforce the ban on federal agents.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted on X Saturday saying California has no jurisdiction over the federal government.

    “I’ve directed our federal agencies that the law signed today has no effect on our operations. Our agents will continue to protect their identities,” he said in a post to X.

    As for local jurisdictions, Sgt. Amar Gandhi with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office said lawmakers are creating a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

    “This will have no consequence to quite literally anybody. They have no jurisdiction over federal authorities. When is the last time you walked outside and saw a patrolman in a mask? It doesn’t happen,” he said. “It’s absolutely stupid and useless. This doesn’t affect anybody it’s intended to effect.”

    Advocacy groups like NorCal Resist said they are looking forward to learning about how the new law will be enforced. They sent a statement reading in part, “We are encouraged to see steps being taken to end these disturbing, secret police tactics that have created terror in our immigrant communities.”

    The White House also sent a statement to KCRA 3. It reads in part, “ICE officers wear masks to protect themselves and their families from being doxed. ICE officers act heroically to enforce the law and protect American communities with the utmost professionalism. Anyone pointing the finger at law enforcement officers instead of the criminals are simply doing the bidding of criminal illegal aliens.”

    Newsom signed the bill along with several others aimed at protecting California’s immigrant communities.

    The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

    The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. And it would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After cuts to food stamps, Trump administration ends government’s annual report on hunger in America

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is ending the federal government’s annual report on hunger in America, stating that it had become “overly politicized” and “rife with inaccuracies.”

    The decision comes two and a half months after President Donald Trump signed legislation sharply reducing food aid to the poor. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the tax and spending cuts bill Republicans muscled through Congress in July means 3 million people would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.

    The decision to scrap the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Household Food Security Report was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

    In a press release Saturday, the USDA said the 2024 report, to be released Oct. 22, would be the last.

    “The questions used to collect the data are entirely subjective and do not present an accurate picture of actual food security,” the USDA said. ”The data is rife with inaccuracies slanted to create a narrative that is not representative of what is actually happening in the countryside as we are currently experiencing lower poverty rates, increasing wages, and job growth under the Trump Administration.”

    The Census Bureau reported earlier this month that the U.S. poverty rate dipped from 11% in 2023 to 10.6% last year, before Trump took office.

    Critics were quick to accuse the administration of deliberately making it harder to measure hunger and assess the impact of its cuts to food stamps.

    “Trump is cancelling an annual government survey that measures hunger in America, rather than allow it to show hunger increasing under his tenure,” Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said on social media. “This follows the playbook of many non-democracies that cancel or manipulate reports that would otherwise show less-than-perfect news.”

    ___

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Newsom signs bill aimed at banning law enforcement from using face coverings

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.(Earlier coverage in the video above.)Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed. It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure. Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information. “Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel–The Associated Press contributed to this story.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed legislation that aims to make California the first state to ban most law enforcement from covering their faces while carrying out operations.

    Senate Bill 627, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, was in response to federal immigration raids where officers have been seen wearing masks. It would prohibit neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.

    (Earlier coverage in the video above.)

    Republican lawmakers and law enforcement agencies were opposed to the bill, arguing it would make officers’ and agents’ job more dangerous. Immigration officials have cited the fear of agents and their families being doxed.

    It’s unclear if California will be able to enforce the measure.

    Newsom also signed several other bills that his office argued would counter “secret police tactics” by the president and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

    The package of legislation would require that families be notified when immigration agents come on school campuses and require a judicial warrant or court order before giving student information or classroom access to ICE.

    The new legislation would also require a warrant or court order before allowing agents access to emergency rooms and other nonpublic areas of a hospital. It would clarify that immigration information collected by a health care provider is medical information.

    “Public safety depends on trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve — but Trump and Miller have shattered that trust and spread fear across America,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is putting an end to it and making sure schools and hospitals remain what they should be: places of care, not chaos.”

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    –The Associated Press contributed to this story.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘We’re not North Korea.’ Newsom signs bills to limit immigration raids at schools and unmask federal agents

    [ad_1]

    In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

    He also signed a bill that bans federal agents from wearing masks. Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

    “We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

    Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

    SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

    Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

    Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

    Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

    Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

    Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

    “Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

    The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

    Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

    “We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

    The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

    Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

    “If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

    California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

    During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

    “That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

    Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

    Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

    The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

    “Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Ormseth, Dakota Smith, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • California lawmakers approve bill to make it a crime for them to sign NDAs when negotiating state laws

    [ad_1]

    The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws. Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret. The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law. The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. “I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.” No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year. KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them. Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. —

    The California Legislature this week approved a bill that would ban state lawmakers from signing non-disclosure agreements when they decide how to use taxpayer dollars or create state laws.

    Non-disclosure agreements are legally binding contracts that force people to keep information secret.

    The California Assembly unanimously passed the measure in its final legislative vote Wednesday and sent it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to decide whether it becomes state law.

    The legislation is a direct result of KCRA 3’s reporting on how California’s government has either used them or allowed special interest groups to use them on a major public project and state laws.

    The bill, AB 1370, would make it a crime for California lawmakers to sign or force anyone to sign the secrecy agreements as they craft legislation. It would be enforced by local law enforcement and give prosecutors the power to charge lawmakers with either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances.

    “I think us as legislators and the governor should not be signing away the public’s right to know the deliberations of important things that will impact their lives,” said Assemblyman Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, who wrote the proposal. “This is one step to bringing more transparency but more trust in the government, more trust in the work we do here in the legislature.”

    No Democratic lawmakers have spoken publicly about the proposal this year.

    KCRA 3 was the first to report the use of NDAs in the California Legislature’s construction of a new $1.1 billion office building for state lawmakers. The Legislature directed 2,000 people, including five state lawmakers and dozens of government workers, to sign NDAs to keep broad information about the project secret. Democratic leaders haven’t given an update on the project in years.

    KCRA 3 also first reported last year that state lawmakers were entirely left out of the negotiations of California’s fast-food minimum wage law, which raised pay to $20 an hour for fast-food workers across the state but provided a mysterious exemption for bakeries that sell and bake their own bread.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office oversaw the negotiations and allowed NDAs to cover the secret talks at the insistence of a major labor organization, SEIU California. Newsom’s office has said neither the governor nor his staff signed them. Since then, no one has been able to explain the bakery exemption, but multiple sources have told KCRA 3 it was for one of the governor’s billionaire donors, who is also a Panera franchisee.

    Joseph Bryant, an SEIU official who is also a member of California’s Fast-Food Council, which is meant to set the wages and working conditions for the workers across the state, would not confirm or deny that he signed the NDA.

    Republican lawmakers twice last year tried to introduce legislation that would have broadly restricted the use of NDAs by lawmakers, staff, other government officials and lobbyists when crafting public policy. Democrats in the Assembly claimed the measure was too broad.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier this year would not confirm or deny if he would try to enforce the existing NDAs on the fast-food law and Capitol Annex project if anyone were to violate them.

    Gov. Newsom has until mid-October to sign or veto legislation.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump hosts White House dinner for GOP lawmakers at paved space he dubbed ‘Rose Garden Club’

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump hosted a dinner Friday night for members of Congress in the newly paved White House Rose Garden, telling them they were the first gathering of what he dubbed the “Rose Garden Club.”

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump hosted a dinner Friday night for members of Congress in the newly paved White House Rose Garden, telling them they were the first gathering of what he dubbed the “Rose Garden Club.”

    The president held a microphone as he addressed about 100 people, mostly House Republicans along with some GOP senators, thanking them for their support of his legislation.

    “We call it the Rose Garden Club. And it’s a club for senators, for congresspeople and for people in Washington, and frankly, people that can bring peace and success to our country,” Trump said.

    Trump said he intended for the tech executives he dined with Thursday night, including Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, to be the first ones to enjoy the space. That dinner was moved indoors due to rain.

    “I had the high-tech guys here, and they didn’t want to have rain on top of their beautiful heads,” Trump told the lawmakers.

    Among the changes Trump has made to renovate and remake the White House has been his decision to pave over the grassy lawn in the Rose Garden, where he set up tables, chairs and umbrellas that look strikingly similar to the outdoor setup at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Walz’s gun plan wouldn’t stop shootings, but it might shred civil liberties

    [ad_1]

    Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz announced on Tuesday plans to hold a special legislative session to introduce new statewide gun control measures, including a ban on “assault weapons.” This comes in the wake of last week’s tragic mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, which left 21 injured and 2 dead.

    Despite assurances that the proposals would not infringe upon Second Amendment rights, Walz’s proposed measures raise significant constitutional concerns. In addition to a ban, Walz proposed a law that would mandate stricter standards for safe storage, increased funding for mental health treatment, and further expansion of Minnesota’s 2023 red flag laws.

    The governor’s statements drew mixed reactions, mostly along partisan lines, with state Democrats largely supportive. Echoing Walz’s call, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, and eight other city leaders urged repeal of Minnesota’s 1985 preemption statute, which bars local governments from enacting stricter gun laws than the state. Even if broader legislation fails, they insist cities must be able to act.

    State Republicans, despite expressing their willingness to work with Democrats to address gun violence, have predictably voiced skepticism toward the proposed measures, citing concerns about potential civil liberties violations, questioning the governor’s intentions, and ultimately doubting that a bipartisan resolution could be reached.

    Walz still seems willing to work with Republicans. But whatever kind of legislation the special session produces—particularly restrictions and/or local bans on common firearms—will likely face constitutional challenges if ratified. 

    The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen established that all state and local-level gun regulations must align with firearm laws that were in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing. Since then, courts have overturned various state-level gun control laws, including bans on so-called “assault weapons,” for not reflecting that standard—among them, Illinois’ attempted prohibition of semiautomatic rifles and Tennessee’s ban on concealed carry in public parks.

    In Minnesota, these complexities extend further. The push to repeal the state’s preemption law—designed to prevent municipalities from passing stricter firearm ordinances than the state—would unravel decades of legal consistency, exposing residents to a fragmented landscape of local regulations and expanding the potential for municipal overreach. However, concerns over state overreach are not merely theoretical.

    Since red flag laws first emerged in 1999, civil liberties advocates have warned of due process erosion, as courts have authorized firearm seizures through ex parte orders with minimal evidentiary standards. In many cases, individuals lose their constitutional rights without being criminally charged or having a chance to dispute allegations. This lack of clarity can lead to deadly misunderstandings, as in 2018, when Maryland resident Gary Willis was killed by police while being served a red flag order issued without his knowledge. Extreme though it was, the case underscores how such laws can escalate risk and undermine core constitutional protections.

    Rather than address these deficiencies, Walz appears ready to double down, suggesting not only an expansion to his earlier red flag laws, but also broader state authority to disarm citizens based on subjective assessments of future risk. If the current trajectory continues, Minnesota may soon serve as a national test case for how far civil liberties can be curtailed in the name of safety.

    [ad_2]

    Jacob Swartz

    Source link

  • Romanian Municipalities Seek More Local Control over Gambling

    [ad_1]

    In Romania, a proposed draft bill supported by city mayors seeks to transfer regulatory control over gambling to local authorities, including the introduction of new licensing taxes. This would diminish the National Gambling Office’s (ONJN) role in overseeing the sector.

    Municipalities Support Bill to Give Them More Control Over Gambling

    Presented by the Ministry of Development, if the bill passes, it would give municipalities the right to license or ban gambling establishments based on local development priorities, urban planning, public order, and public health. Currently, gambling operators are licensed at the national level, while local councils have only an advisory role in the approval process for physical gambling venues within their jurisdictions.

    The push for more regional authority over the gambling industry comes at a time when Romania is increasing its oversight of the sector. So far, 2025 has proven to be quite an active time for lawmakers and authorities on that front, as the country has also worked with international companies to impose more control over the industry. For example, in June, Romania asked Meta and Google to block illegal gambling ads and to aid the state’s efforts to curb unauthorized gambling operations.

    The initiative for giving more local authority to municipalities is being led by Nelu Popa, the mayor of Reșița. He has called on the government to give more authority to local administrations, citing the ONJN’s inability to effectively enforce regulations. Popa further explained that this failure has resulted in a surge of betting shops and gaming halls where operators seemingly disregard the rules.

    This is already a problem that the country has been dealing with when it comes to the online space, as there are many companies targeting the local market and operating without a license. For this reason, the ONJN added 30 gambling websites to its blacklist just last week.

    More Taxes Could Come If the Bill Passes

    The bill also proposes additional taxation, with local councils aiming to introduce a direct levy to help mitigate the social impact of gambling.

    According to the Ministry of Development, the reform would create the conditions for genuine public control over an economic activity with significant social risks, which is supposed to be tailored to each community’s specific context. The ministry also highlighted the importance of securing funding for social assistance, public safety, and local services.

    This push for local-level taxation comes alongside recent national changes to the tax structure for online gambling, including differentiated rates based on gambling types and player winnings. The new government is working to reduce a budget deficit estimated at 30 billion lei (approximately $7.1 billion).

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Velikov

    Source link

  • Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stock

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — An unusual alliance emerged in the House on Wednesday as lawmakers who agree on little else rallied support for a bill that would prohibit members of Congress and their families from owning and trading individual stocks.

    The group included darlings of the far right, the left, moderates and many in between. They gathered to promote a ban that polls well with voters and appears to be finding new momentum after stalling out in previous sessions of Congress.

    “It’s not every day you see this cast of characters up here,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican who represents a perennial swing district in Pennsylvania. “You’re all smirking out there. That’s a good thing. It speaks to the power of this cause.”

    Congress has discussed proposals for years to keep lawmakers from engaging in trading individual stocks, nodding to the idea that there’s a potential conflict of interest when they are often privy to information and decisions that can dramatically move markets.

    A Senate committee has approved legislation from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri that would also extend the prohibition on stock trading to future presidents and vice presidents — while notably exempting Republican President Donald Trump. The House bill unveiled this week is limited to Congress, but the sponsors said they were open to extending it to the executive branch if enough support emerged.

    Under current law, federal lawmakers are required to disclose their stock sales and purchases. The bill requiring disclosure, The Stock Act, was signed into law in 2012. At the time, lawmakers and government watchdogs predicted that public disclosure would shame lawmakers out of actively buying and selling stock. That hasn’t happened.

    The sponsors said they merged their own, individual bills on banning stocks and came together with a single bipartisan effort. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, the bill’s lead sponsor, said that the group had been meeting for the last several months, and some sponsors had actually been working on this for years. About a dozen lawmakers from both parties joined Roy on stage. It was an unusually festive moment as the partisan lines in Congress have rarely been sharper.

    “I don’t agree with some of these people on anything,” said Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican often aligned with the the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.

    Progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. followed Burchett to the podium and fist-bumped him when doing so. She said she felt like the coalition showed how Congress should actually work. “It feels foreign and it feels alien and it’s like, what’s going on here?” she said.

    While the legislation would not allow lawmakers to own individual stocks and bonds, they would be allowed to own diversified mutual funds and ETFs and certain commodities. Lawmakers who currently own individual stocks and bonds would have 180 days to divest. New members would have 90 days to divest upon taking office.

    The mood was celebratory at Wednesday’s unveiling, but even if the bill were to pass the House, it would face a more difficult climb in the Senate. At least 60 votes would be needed to advance the legislation in that chamber and some senators have expressed concerns about the concept.

    Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., acknowledged that members opposed to banning stocks are “persistent.”

    “Those of us who support banning stock trading in Congress are very vocal in our position, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t opponents,” Magaziner said.

    Some members expressed urgency in moving the bill through the House. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla. said they have “asked nicely for leadership to put this on the floor” and set a deadline for the end of month before she would seek to force a vote.

    A version of the trading ban that advanced out of one Senate panel was described by Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin as “legislative demagoguery.”

    “We do have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure,” Johnson said. “So I don’t see the necessity of this.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Left and right are joining forces to ban lawmakers from trading stock

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — An unusual alliance emerged in the House on Wednesday as lawmakers, who agree on little else, rallied support for a bill that would prohibit members of Congress and their families from owning and trading individual stocks.

    The group included darlings of the far right, the left, moderates and many in between. They gathered to promote a ban that polls well with voters and appears to be finding new momentum after stalling out in previous sessions of Congress.

    “It’s not every day you see this cast of characters up here,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican who represents a perennial swing district in Pennsylvania. “You’re all smirking out there. That’s a good thing. It speaks to the power of this cause.”

    Congress has discussed proposals for years to keep lawmakers from engaging in trading individual stocks, nodding to the idea that there’s a potential conflict of interest when they are often privy to information and decisions that can dramatically move markets.

    A Senate committee has approved legislation from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri that would also extend the prohibition on stock trading to future presidents and vice presidents — while notably exempting Republican President Donald Trump. The House bill unveiled this week is limited to Congress, but the sponsors said they were open to extending it to the executive branch if enough support emerged.

    Under current law, federal lawmakers are required to disclose their stock sales and purchases. The bill requiring disclosure, The Stock Act, was signed into law in 2012. At the time, lawmakers and government watchdogs predicted that public disclosure would shame lawmakers out of actively buying and selling stock. That hasn’t happened.

    The sponsors said they merged their own, individual bills on banning stocks and came together with a single bipartisan effort. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, the bill’s lead sponsor, said that the group had been meeting for the last several months, and some sponsors had actually been working on this for years. About a dozen lawmakers from both parties joined Roy on stage. It was an unusually festive moment as the partisan lines in Congress have rarely been sharper.

    “I don’t agree with some of these people on anything,” said Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican often aligned with the the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.

    Progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. followed Burchett to the podium and fist-bumped him when doing so. She said she felt like the coalition showed how Congress should actually work. “It feels foreign and it feels alien and it’s like, what’s going on here?” she said.

    While the legislation would not allow lawmakers to own individual stocks and bonds, they would be allowed to own diversified mutual funds and ETFs and certain commodities. Lawmakers who currently own individual stocks and bonds would have 180 days to divest. New members would have 90 days to divest upon taking office.

    The mood was celebratory at Wednesday’s unveiling, but even if the bill were to pass the House, it would face a more difficult climb in the Senate. At least 60 votes would be needed to advance the legislation in that chamber and some senators have expressed concerns about the concept.

    Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., acknowledged that members opposed to banning stocks are “persistent.”

    “Those of us who support banning stock trading in Congress are very vocal in our position, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t opponents,” Magaziner said.

    A version of the trading ban that advanced out of one Senate panel was described by Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin as “legislative demagoguery.”

    “We do have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure,” Johnson said. “So I don’t see the necessity of this.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government shutdown looms as Congress returns after monthlong August recess

    [ad_1]

    Congressional Republicans scored a massive victory this summer when they passed President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” of tax and spending cuts without a single Democratic vote. But as they return to Washington this fall after a monthlong August recess, they will have to find a way to work with Democrats — or around them — as a government shutdown looms.

    The annual spending battle will dominate the September agenda, along with a possible effort by Senate Republicans to change their chamber’s rules to thwart Democratic stalling tactics on nominations. The Senate is also debating whether to move forward on legislation that would slap steep tariffs on some of Russia’s trading partners as the U.S. pressures Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine.

    In the House, Republicans will continue their investigations of former President Joe Biden while Speaker Mike Johnson navigates a split in his conference over whether the Trump administration should release more files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

    A look at what Congress will be doing as lawmakers return from the August break:

    The most urgent task for Congress is to avoid a government shutdown on Sept. 30, when federal funding runs out. And it’s so far unclear if Republicans and Democrats will be able to agree on how to do that.

    Congress will have to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government funded for a few weeks or months while they try to finish the full-year package. But Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass an extension, and Democrats will want significant concessions. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s vote with Republicans to avoid a shutdown in March prompted furious backlash within his party.

    The Trump administration’s efforts to claw back previously approved spending could also complicate the negotiations. Republicans passed legislation this summer that rescinded about $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds and Trump notified Congress again on Friday that he will block $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid.

    Democrats have warned that such efforts could tank the broader negotiations. “Trump is rooting for a shutdown,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on social media Friday.

    Senators are expected to return to Washington right where they left off in early August — fighting over Trump’s nominees.

    Exasperated Republicans fled Washington for the month after making little headway with Senate Democrats over their nominations blockade, which has forced delays in confirmations and angered Trump as many of his administration’s positions remain unfilled. Republican leaders called it quits after a rare Saturday session that ended with a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations and Trump posting on social media that Chuck Schumer could “GO TO HELL!”

    Republicans now say they’re ready to try and change Senate rules to get around the Democratic delays, and they are expected to spend the next several weeks discussing how that might work.

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of Trump’s closest congressional allies, has pushed the president for months to support his sweeping bipartisan sanctions bill that would impose steep tariffs on countries that are fueling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by buying its oil, gas, uranium, and other exports. The legislation has the backing of 85 senators, but Trump has yet to endorse it, and Republican leaders have so far said they won’t move without him.

    Graham has stepped up his calls after Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelenskyy last month in hopes of a peace deal. Since then, Russia has continued to step up attacks on Ukraine.

    “If we don’t have this thing moving in the right direction by the time we get back, then I think that plan B needs to kick in,” Graham said of his bill in an interview with The Associated Press last month.

    Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy will appear before the Senate Finance Committee to discuss his health care agenda on Thursday, less than a week after he ousted Susan Monarez as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several other top officials also resigned in protest.

    Kennedy has tried to advance anti-vaccine policies that are contradicted by decades of scientific research. Monarez’s lawyers said she refused “to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts.”

    Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chairman of the HELP panel that oversees the CDC and a member of the Finance Committee, has called on the CDC to delay a meeting of outside experts who make recommendations on the use of vaccines until Congress can look into the issue.

    The House left Washington in July amid disagreements among Republicans about whether they should force President Donald Trump’s administration to release more information on the sex trafficking investigation into the late Jeffrey Epstein. The pressure for more disclosure could only get more intense when lawmakers return.

    Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky are pushing the House to take up their bill to force the Department of Justice to publicly release its investigation. They are planning a news conference this week joined by Epstein victims. The House Oversight Committee is also investigating the issue.

    Democrats are eager to keep pressing on the Epstein files, especially after the Trump administration reneged on pledges for transparency. The case for years has been the subject of online conspiracy theories and speculation about who may have been involved or aware of the wealthy financier’s abuse.

    The House Oversight Committee will return from August recess with a slate of interviews lined up as part of its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s mental state while in office. The committee has already conducted interviews and depositions with nearly a dozen former top Biden aides and members of the president’s inner circle.

    The Republican-led committee will hear from former top Biden staffers in September like Jeff Zients, Biden’s final White House chief of staff, Karine Jean-Pierre, the former White House press secretary, and Andrew Bates, a top press aide.

    Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., has said public hearings and a full report can be expected sometime in the fall.

    Congress has discussed proposals for years to keep lawmakers from engaging in trading individual stocks, nodding to the idea that there’s a potential conflict of interest when they are often privy to information and decisions that can dramatically move markets.

    That push is now gaining momentum. A Senate committee has approved legislation from GOP Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri that would also extend the prohibition on stock trading to future presidents and vice presidents — while notably exempting Trump. In the House, several members are putting forward proposals and even threatening to maneuver around GOP leadership to force a vote.

    Still, there is plenty of resistance to the idea, including from many wealthy lawmakers who reap dividends from their portfolios.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Matt Brown and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • HOA ban for millions of Americans gets closer

    [ad_1]

    A potential ban on homeowners associations (HOAs) in Florida is edging closer after a state Republican said he was considering filing legislation about the matter.

    Juan C. Porras, who represents Miami-Dade County has called to repeal the associations, calling them “authoritarian bonds.”

    Newsweek contacted Porras by website form to comment on this story.

    Why It Matters

    Some 9.5 Floridians, or nearly half the state’s population, live in HOA communities. These organizations comprise a group of residents elected to a board which creates community rules, maintains common areas and collects funds to do so.

    HOAs have caused headaches for some residents. According to a September 2024 survey by home repair and maintenance services company Frontdoor, 70 percent of people would prefer to purchase a home in a community without an HOA.

    In this Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2016, file photo, a home is listed for sale in Surfside, Fla.

    AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File

    They are also on the rise. U.S. Census data shows the proportion of single-family homes built within HOAs has increased from 49 percent in 2009 to 65 percent in 2023.

    What To Know

    Posting on X, Porras said: “I am seriously considering legislation to repeal Homeowner Associations (HOA’s). In the Free State of Florida, we should not have authoritarian boards dictate your day to day life with no accountability.”

    According to local outlets, he also shared a petition calling for enforcement and transparency over HOAs. At the time of writing it has been signed 1,551 times.

    Porras has not drafted legislation or announced details about how he would propose a ban but he told local press he wants to work on it before the state legislative session ends in January 2026.

    What People Are Saying

    Homeowner Sharon Siebert told Tampa Bay 28: “I understand that it’s a business, I understand that the business is to make sure the properties are maintained. But at the same time, when you’ve been here a long time and always maintained your property, it’s difficult when you find yourself in a tough situation and there’s no help.”

    Porras told Tampa Bay 28: “It might just be time we take a look if HOAs are really even necessary. Maybe we should just do away with homeowner associations as a whole.”

    He added: “You’re being charged $500, $600 plus a month when in reality you don’t see a lot of that money going back to even your own community.”

    “It was a failed experiment,” he said.

    What Happens Next

    Whether Porras advances legislation and whether it is then well received by other lawmakers in the legislature remains to be seen.

    Any legislation would have to pass the Florida House and Senate before being approved by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Video: What Happens When a Small Town Loses Its Radio Station?

    [ad_1]

    Since Congress approved President Trump’s request to claw back $1.1 billion in funding for public broadcasting, local stations in rural areas are at risk of going dark. Megan Mineiro, a congressional reporter for The New York Times, went to rural Alaska to see how the cuts affect one radio station and a town that relies on it.

    [ad_2]

    Megan Mineiro, Melanie Bencosme, Christina Shaman, Laura Salaberry, Haiyun Jiang, Alexandra Ostasiewicz and June Kim

    Source link

  • Colorado House approves bill to restore state Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives on Sunday passed Senate Bill 25B-2, which would restore Medicaid funding using state money for reproductive health care providers, namely Planned Parenthood.

    The 43-19 party-line vote comes after Republicans in Congress passed what is dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which excluded Planned Parenthood from federal Medicaid reimbursement for reproductive health care services.

    Existing federal law prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for most abortion-related services.

    SB 25B-2 aims to preserve access to services like cancer screenings, STI testing, and birth control consultations for Medicaid recipients across Colorado, according to a news release from Colorado House Democrats.

    “All Coloradans, whether or not they are a Medicaid recipient, deserve access to reproductive health care,” Jennifer Bacon, D-Denver, said in a statement.

    Republicans opposed the bill, arguing that Colorado can’t afford it amid a $1.2 billion budget shortfall the state is facing.

    The legislation, which was approved during the ongoing special legislative session, now heads to the governor’s desk.

    Coloradans making a difference | Denver7 featured videos

    Denver7 is committed to making a difference in our community by standing up for what’s right, listening, lending a helping hand and following through on promises. See that work in action, in the videos above.

    [ad_2]

    Robert Garrison

    Source link