[ad_1]
[ad_2]Source link
Tag: Republicans
-
20 Republicans vote with Dems to reverse Trump executive order on federal unions
[ad_1]
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Twenty House Republicans joined Democrats to pass a bill reversing President Donald Trump’s executive order blocking most federal unions on Thursday.
The bill was led by Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, who got a vote on his measure by filing a discharge petition. It’s designed to force a vote on legislation over the wishes of leadership provided it gets support from a majority of House lawmakers.
The bill, called the Protect America’s Workforce Act, is aimed at repealing a March 2025 executive order by Trump.
The final vote passed 231 to 195, with all the “no” votes coming from Republicans.
6 HOUSE DEMOCRATS EXPLAIN BREAKING WITH PARTY TO END SHUTDOWN
President Donald Trump speaks to a gathering of top U.S. military commanders at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., Sept. 30, 2025. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)
Trump’s order blocked collective bargaining with unions at an array of federal agencies, including parts of the departments of Defense, State, Veterans Affairs, Justice and Energy.
It also affected workers at the departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Treasury, Health and Human Services (HHS), Interior and Agriculture.
During debate on the bill Thursday afternoon, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said undoing Trump’s executive order was akin to encouraging “more work-from-home policies for our federal employees,” which he said Americans voted against when they elected Trump and Republicans to lead in Washington.
“It is important to remember that public sector unions are fundamentally different from their private sector counterparts,” Comer also argued. “In fact, none other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a major champion of private sector unions, believed that public sector unions made no sense.”
“In the private sector, unions represent workers and sit across the bargaining table from representatives of business owners. However, federal unions are not negotiating with a profit-seeking corporation. They are negotiating with the public’s elected representatives.”
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, said, “Union bosses love this bill for one reason, and that’s because it protects their telework perks, it shields them from accountability, and gives them effective veto power over a duly elected president with a mandate to clean up a bloated federal bureaucracy.”
Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, attends a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington, July 17, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., argued, “Collective bargaining is essentially the freedom to negotiate the best possible work environment.”
“I’m thankful for this bipartisan effort to restore collective bargaining rights for more than 1 million public servants that are part of our federal government,” Jeffries said.
Rep. Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa., who said his district was home to thousands of federal workers, argued that restoring collective bargaining rights for those workers is “a lifeline that ensures fair wages, safe workplaces, and the basic dignity that every worker deserves,” including corrections officers and people who work with veterans and seniors.
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., also appeared on the House floor to debate in favor of the bill, arguing, “These are career public servants, many of them veterans who show up every single day to serve our country. Every American deserves a voice in the workplace, and that includes the people who keep our government running and open.”
Discharge petitions are rarely successful in the House but have been used more frequently this year as Republicans grapple with a razor-thin majority.
58 HOUSE DEMS VOTE AGAINST RESOLUTION HONORING ‘LIFE AND LEGACY’ OF CHARLIE KIRK
In Golden’s case, five House Republicans had signed onto the petition along with 213 Democrats — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Bresnahan, Don Bacon, R-Neb., Lawler and Nick LaLota, R-N.Y.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A vote to advance the bill won support from 13 Republicans on Wednesday night, setting it up for the Thursday vote.
That number grew early on Thursday afternoon during another procedural vote to set up final passage, with 22 Republicans voting to push the bill to its final step.
To be successful, however, the measure would still have to be taken up successfully in the Senate and get signed into law by Trump.
[ad_2]
-
Senate rejects extension of health care subsidies as costs are set to rise for millions of Americans
[ad_1]
The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.”Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Donald Trump. But Democrats immediately rejected the plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.But despite the bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.The deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on health care. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees. An intractable issueThe votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that health care is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy health care on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.”When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”A plethora of plans, but little agreementRepublicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on health care.If they fail to act and health care costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.___Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON —The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.
Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.
Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.
“Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”
Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Donald Trump. But Democrats immediately rejected the plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.
Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.
But despite the bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.
The deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on health care. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.
The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees.
An intractable issue
The votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.
Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that health care is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy health care on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.
“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.
Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.
Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”
A plethora of plans, but little agreement
Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.
Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.
In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.
Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on health care.
If they fail to act and health care costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.
___
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
-
Supreme Court poised to strike down Watergate-era campaign finance limits
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.
The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.
For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress. And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.
The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.
“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”
He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called super PACs.
In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.
They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.
Last year, billionaire Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.
Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.
Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.
At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.
Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.
“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.
If a big-money donor hopes to win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” Francisco said.
The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then-Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.
Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.
Precedents might have stood in the way.
In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.
“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.
Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.
“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”
The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.
Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.
Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.
“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”
Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.
“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”
[ad_2]
David G. Savage
Source link -
Californians sharply divided along partisan lines about immigration raids, poll finds
[ad_1]
California voters are sharply divided along partisan lines over the Trump administration’s immigration raids this year in Los Angeles and across the nation, according to a new poll.
Just over half of the state’s registered voters oppose federal efforts to reduce undocumented immigration, and 61% are against deporting everyone in the nation who doesn’t have legal status, according to a recent poll by UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab released to The Times on Wednesday.
But there is an acute difference in opinions based on political leanings.
Nearly 80% of Democrats oppose reducing the number of people entering the United States illegally, and 90% are against deporting everyone in the country who is undocumented, according to the poll. Among Republicans, 5% are against reducing the entries and 10% don’t believe all undocumented immigrants should be forced to leave.
“The big thing that we find, not surprisingly, is that Democrats and Republicans look really different,” said political scientist Amy Lerman, director of UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab, who studies race, public opinion and political behavior. “On these perspectives, they fall pretty clearly along party lines. While there’s some variation within the parties by things like age and race, really, the big divide is between Democrats and Republicans.”
While there were some differences based on gender, age, income, geography and race, the results largely mirrored the partisan divide in the state, Lerman said.
One remarkable finding was that nearly a quarter of survey respondents personally knew or were acquainted with someone in their family or friend groups directly affected by the deportation efforts, Lerman said.
“That’s a really substantial proportion,” she said. “Similarly, the extent to which we see people reporting that people in their communities are concerned enough about deportation efforts that they’re not sending their kids to school, not shopping in local stores, not going to work,” not seeking medical care or attending church services.
The poll surveyed a sample of the state’s registered voters and did not include the sentiments of the most affected communities — unregistered voters or those who are ineligible to cast ballots because they are not citizens.
A little more than 23 million of California’s 39.5 million residents were registered to vote as of late October, according to the secretary of state’s office.
“So if we think about the California population generally, this is a really significant underestimate of the effects, even though we’re seeing really substantial effects on communities,” she said.
Earlier this year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a series of raids in Los Angeles and surrounding communities that spiked in June, creating both fear and outrage in Latino communities. Despite opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other elected Democrats, the Trump administration also deployed the National Guard to the streets of the nation’s second-largest city to, federal officials said, protect federal immigration officials.
The months since have been chaotic, with masked, armed agents randomly pulling people — most of whom are Latino — off the streets and out of their workplaces and sending many to detention facilities, where some have died. Some deportees were flown to an El Salvador prison. Multiple lawsuits have been filed by state officials and civil rights groups.
In one notable local case, a federal district judge issued a ruling temporarily blocking federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area. The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal and lifted that order, while the case moves forward.
More than 7,100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in the Los Angeles area by federal authorities since June 6, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
On Monday, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Bass and other elected officials hosted a congressional hearing on the impact of immigration raids that have taken place across the country. Garcia, the top Democrat on the House’s oversight committee, also announced the creation of a tracker to document misconduct and abuse during ICE raids.
While Republican voters largely aligned with Trump’s actions on deportations, 16% said that they believed that the deportations will worsen the state’s economy.
Lerman said the university planned to study whether these numbers changed as the impacts on the economy are felt more greatly.
“If it continues to affect people, particularly, as we see really high rates of effects on the workforce, so construction, agriculture, all of the places where we’re as an economy really reliant [on immigrant labor], I can imagine some of these starting to shift even among Republicans,” she said.
Among Latinos, whose support of Trump grew in the 2024 election, there are multiple indications of growing dissatisfaction with the president, according to separate national polls.
Nearly eight in 10 Latinos said Trump’s policies have harmed their community, compared to 69% in 2019 during his first term, according to a national poll of adults in the United States released by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center on Monday. About 71% said the administration’s deportation efforts had gone too far, an increase from 56% in March. And it was the first time in the two decades that Pew has conducted its survey of Latino voters that the number of Latinos who said their standing in the United States had worsened increased, with more than two-thirds expressing the sentiment.
Another poll released earlier this month by Somos Votantes, a liberal group that urges Latino voters to support Democratic candidates, found that one-third of Latino voters who previously supported Trump rue their decision, according to a national poll.
Small business owner Brian Gavidia is among the Latino voters who supported Trump in November because of financial struggles.
“I was tired of struggling, I was tired of seeing my friends closing businesses,” the 30-year-old said. “When [President] Biden ran again I’m like, ‘I’m not going to vote for the same four years we just had’ … I was sad and I was heartbroken that our economy was failing and that’s the reason why I went that way.”
The East L.A. native, the son of immigrants from Colombia and El Salvador, said he wasn’t concerned about Trump’s immigration policies because the president promised to deport the “worst of the worst.”
He grew disgusted watching the raids that unfolded in Los Angeles earlier this year.
“They’re taking fruit vendors, day laborers, that’s the worst of the worst to you?” he remembered thinking.
Over a lunch of asada tortas and horchata in East L.A., Gavidia recounted being detained by Border Patrol agents in June while working at a Montebello tow yard. Agents shoved him against a metal gate, demanding to know what hospital he was born at after he said he was an American citizen, according to video of the incident.
After reviewing his ID, the agents eventually let Gavidia go. The Department of Homeland Security later claimed that Gavidia was detained for investigation for interference and released after being confirmed to be a U.S. citizen with no outstanding warrants. He is now a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups alleging racial profiling during immigration raids.
“At that moment, I was the criminal, at that moment I was the worst of the worst, which is crazy because I went to go see who they were getting — the worst of the worst like they said they were going to get,” Gavidia said. “But turns out when I got there, I was the worst of the worst.”
[ad_2]
Seema Mehta, Brittny Mejia
Source link -
Marjorie Taylor Greene eyes political future after announcing she’ll resign from Congress
[ad_1]
[ad_2]
Marjorie Taylor Greene eyes political future after announcing she’ll resign from Congress – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Source link -
Most Americans don’t think Trump has clearly explained military actions in Venezuela, poll finds
[ad_1]
[ad_2]
Most Americans don’t think Trump has clearly explained military actions in Venezuela, poll finds – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Source link -
Trump officials express optimism after meeting with Ukraine to end Russia’s war
[ad_1]
President Trump originally gave Ukraine until Thursday to accept their peace proposal, but overnight Rubio downplayed that deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend, noting he is optimistic with the progress made. It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue. Maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in *** very long time. Rubio did not go into detail there. The peace proposal drafted by the US to end the Russia-Ukraine war has sparked concern for both Democrats and some Republicans and also for Kiev. The original plan gives in to many Russian demands that Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelinsky has rejected on multiple occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory. On Sunday night, the White House. Put out *** statement noting the Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns like security guarantees, long-term economic development, political sovereignty were addressed during the meeting. In *** video statement, Zelinsky said diplomacy has been activated. Rubio called this peace proposal *** living breathing document that could change and made it clear that any final product will have to be presented to Moscow. In Washington, I’m Rachel Herzheimer.
Trump officials express optimism after meeting with Ukraine to end Russia’s war
Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed optimism after meeting with Ukrainian leaders to discuss the Trump administration’s peace plan, despite concerns over the proposal’s concessions to Russia.
Updated: 4:08 AM PST Nov 24, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Ukrainian leaders in Europe to address concerns in the Trump administration’s peace plan to end the nearly four-year war between Russia and Ukraine, which has drawn criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, as well as Kyiv.President Donald Trump initially set a deadline for Ukraine to accept his peace proposal by Thursday, but Rubio downplayed this deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend.”It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time,” Rubio said.The peace proposal drafted by the U.S. has sparked concern due to its concessions to Russian demands, which Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected multiple times, including the surrender of large pieces of territory. On Sunday night, the White House released a statement that says in part, “The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting.”In a video statement, Zelenskyy said, “Diplomacy has been reinvigorated.”Over the weekend, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators said Rubio told them on Saturday that the plan had originated with Russia and that it was actually a “wish list” for Moscow rather than a serious push for peace.A State Department spokesperson said that was “blatantly false.” Rubio suggested online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source of information.”It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.”We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Rubio described the peace proposal as a “living, breathing document” that would continue to evolve and emphasized that any final agreement would need to be presented to Moscow.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
WASHINGTON —Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Ukrainian leaders in Europe to address concerns in the Trump administration’s peace plan to end the nearly four-year war between Russia and Ukraine, which has drawn criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, as well as Kyiv.
President Donald Trump initially set a deadline for Ukraine to accept his peace proposal by Thursday, but Rubio downplayed this deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend.
“It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time,” Rubio said.
The peace proposal drafted by the U.S. has sparked concern due to its concessions to Russian demands, which Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected multiple times, including the surrender of large pieces of territory.
On Sunday night, the White House released a statement that says in part, “The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting.”
In a video statement, Zelenskyy said, “Diplomacy has been reinvigorated.”
Over the weekend, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators said Rubio told them on Saturday that the plan had originated with Russia and that it was actually a “wish list” for Moscow rather than a serious push for peace.
A State Department spokesperson said that was “blatantly false.”
Rubio suggested online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source of information.
“It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.
“We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
Rubio described the peace proposal as a “living, breathing document” that would continue to evolve and emphasized that any final agreement would need to be presented to Moscow.
Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
[ad_2]
-
Poll shows Americans pessimistic about economy as holiday shopping gets underway
[ad_1]
[ad_2]
Poll shows Americans pessimistic about economy as holiday shopping gets underway – CBS News
Watch CBS News
Source link -
WATCH: Democrats struggle to defend Schumer after shutdown ends with few wins
[ad_1]
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
On the heels of a historic 43-day government shutdown, Democrats are facing tough questions about whether the record-breaking standoff was worth it, and whether Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave up too soon.
After failing to secure the healthcare subsidies they demanded, and with several senators breaking ranks to join Republicans in reopening the government — a move widely seen as a black eye on Schumer’s leadership — Senate Democrats continued to blame President Donald Trump and the GOP for the shutdown when pressed by Fox News Digital.
“I’m disappointed and angry that Republicans forced a false and impossible choice between healthcare insurance and reopening the government,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Wednesday. “They promised that there will be a vote on extending the healthcare subsidies. If they fail to provide that vote, or if the vote fails, they should be held accountable. They are to be blamed.”
The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., is seen on Nov. 5, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Blumenthal charged that it was Republicans who “forced the false choice between reopening the government and affordable health insurance,” which he said has been “viewed reprehensibly by the American people, and rightly so.”
Like many of his Democratic colleagues, the Connecticut senator sidestepped a question about whether Schumer could have done more to hold the line on negotiations.
SENATE VOTE TO END GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN IGNITES DEMOCRAT CIVIL WAR
Seven Democratic senators, including one independent who caucuses with them, and six House Democrats voted to reopen the government last week, without extending the pandemic-era Obamacare subsidies that Democrats had pushed for since the shutdown began on Oct. 1.
The intraparty revolt has exposed a widening rift between Democratic leadership and its left flank, as progressive candidates accused Schumer of surrendering leverage to Republicans in exchange for a funding deal that left key healthcare priorities unresolved.
“We have federal workers across the country that have been missing paychecks. We have SNAP recipients, millions of SNAP recipients across the country whose access to food stability was imperiled, and we have to figure out what that was for,” Ocasio-Cortez said last week, before adding, “We cannot enable this kind of cruelty with our cowardice.”
Back on Capitol Hill this week, Democrats were less willing to blame Schumer for the Democrats who broke ranks, instead blaming Republicans for the ultimatum.
Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill on July 17, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
When asked if the shutdown was worth it, Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News Digital that Democrats “should absolutely continue fighting for healthcare.”
And Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., said, “I don’t think you can look at a shutdown from that kind of perspective” of whether it was worth it.
“I think what’s absolutely clear is that Republicans now own this healthcare crisis,” McBride added. “Americans very clearly understand that it was Republicans who are stopping at nothing to prevent a vote on the Affordable Care Act tax credit, including having been willing to shut down the government.”
“I voted against reopening without having secured the changes to healthcare and addressing the healthcare-increase spikes. That remains the focus, that remains the work ahead of us still,” Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said when pressed on the same question and without answering whether the government is headed for another shutdown.
Senator Alex Padilla, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on June 11, 2025. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
Democrats who spoke to Fox News Digital said they hoped the government isn’t headed for another shutdown but maintained that the party should continue to fight for healthcare guarantees.
While the government reopened last week, the stopgap funding bill only keeps federal spending at current fiscal-year-2025 levels through Jan. 30 to give Congress more time to negotiate a longer-term appropriations package for fiscal year 2026. If Congress can’t reach a consensus, the government could be headed toward another shutdown.
As part of a backroom deal to reopen the government, Senate Democrats were promised a separate vote on extending healthcare subsidies.
Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., attends the Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, on Aug. 20, 2024. (Vincent Alban/Reuters)
“I certainly hope we’ll avoid another government shutdown, but, again, Republicans promised a vote on extending the healthcare tax credit subsidies. If they fail to provide that vote, or if the vote fails, they’ll be to blame. They’ll be held accountable,” Blumenthal said.
And Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said he was looking forward to Republicans having the opportunity to go on the record by voting on the healthcare guarantees this December.
As for whether the government is barreling toward another shutdown, Kelly said, “[You] gotta ask the President and the Republicans in the House and Senate.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kristen Gillibrand and Elissa Slotkin did not respond to Fox News Digital’s question about whether the shutdown was worth it, and their offices did not immediately respond to further inquiries.
When reached for comment, White House Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson flipped the script on the Democrats who placed blame on Republicans for the government shutdown.
“Democrats shut down the government and inflicted great pain on the American people because they wanted to use struggling families as ‘leverage’ for their far left agenda,” Jackson told Fox News Digital.
“President Trump defeated their absurd gambit and delivered yet another win to the American people, but it’s alarming that even after their ploy failed, Democrats still can’t admit their shutdown hurt the American people,” she added.
[ad_2]
-
Trump’s Low Approval Rating Is Hurting Republicans in Polls
[ad_1]
Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images
One of the major narratives that came out of the very poor showing of Republicans in the 2025 elections is that the GOP struggles to win when Donald Trump is not on the ballot. Certainly the president himself shares that belief, as he said on Election Night in no uncertain terms on social media: “‘TRUMP WASN’T ON THE BALLOT, AND SHUTDOWN, WERE THE TWO REASONS THAT REPUBLICANS LOST ELECTIONS TONIGHT.”
This was cold comfort for Republicans who understand that Trump isn’t going to be on the ballot in 2026, either. But beyond that, the narrative may not even be true. Polls keep showing that Trump is increasingly a drag on his party and that his weaknesses in the electorate very much resemble the GOP’s weaknesses on November 4.
There’s now little question that the president’s job-approval ratings have been steadily sliding downward for the past couple of months. On September 20, his net approval average at Silver Bulletin was at minus-7.5 percent (44.9 percent approval, 52.4 percent disapproval). On November 20, it was at minus-14.1. percent, which is a new low for his second term. The intensity of his unpopularity is high and rising: 45.2 percent of Americans strongly disapprove of the job Trump is doing as president, again per the averages at Silver Bulletin.
On particular issues, his net approval remains underwater on all the major categories: immigration (minus-7.2 percent), trade (minus-18.8), the economy (minus-20.2), and inflation (minus-34). The numbers for immigration, the economy, and inflation are at second-term lows. The last two are noteworthy given the importance of “affordability” in the 2025 Democratic victories (reflected in Trump’s own messaging beginning the moment the November 4 results were in) and, beyond that, the importance of these issues in Trump’s 2024 victory.
A poll from Fox News released on Wednesday probed more deeply into public sentiment on the economy and showed that the administration’s argument that high prices were caused by Joe Biden isn’t working anymore:
By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, voters say Trump is more responsible for the current economy than Biden (62% vs. 32%). Unsurprisingly, there’s a large partisan gap, as Democrats are nearly 40 percentage points more likely than Republicans to blame Trump. Somewhat surprisingly though, 42% of Republicans blame him, while a 53% majority says Biden is responsible. Among independents, 62% say Trump and 29% Biden.
Not all polls break down the electorate, but those that do are pretty consistent in showing that Trump’s 2024 coalition is shrinking back from the hard-core MAGA base. New polling from The Argument reinforces that impression forcefully:
Republicans are hemorrhaging support with the young, nonwhite, and disengaged voters who powered Trump’s victory in 2024. Here are a few tidbits to show just what I’m talking about:
Democrats are winning 25% of nonwhite Trump 2024 voters. Among white voters, this number is just 4%.
Among registered voters who didn’t vote for either Harris or Trump in 2024, Democrats receive 62% of the vote — a 25-percentage-point lead. Among the white voters of this group, Democrats lead by two points; among nonwhite nonvoters, they lead by 48 points.
Democrats win 64% of young voters in our survey, for a lead of 28 points. (For context, in 2024, they won this group by just 10 points.)
Exit polls from the 2025 elections showed exactly the same pro-Democratic trends among young and non-white voters in New Jersey and Virginia. If the numbers persist into 2026, it’s hard to imagine Republicans hanging on to their control of the House — particularly if Trump’s effort to change the landscape through gerrymandering continues to flounder. In addition to Trump’s popularity issues, and despite their own well-known problems, Democrats are now opening up a significant lead in the congressional generic ballot, an approximation of the House popular vote next year. According to RealClearPolling, the average Democratic lead on the generic ballot is 4.8 percent, another 2025 high. At Decision Desk HQ, the Democratic lead is 5.4 percent; Republicans led by 5.3 percent there at the beginning of 2025. The Argument explains what these trends might mean in the results:
If the election were held today, Republicans may be facing a blue wave larger than the 2018 midterms, which resulted in a commanding Democratic House majority. Put simply, they are in really bad shape.
How bad? Consider this: In our survey fielded right after the election, Nov. 10-17, Republicans trailed by four percentage points among registered voters. When we pushed undecided voters to pick a side, that deficit expanded to six percentage points. And after that was filtered to just those who said they were likely to vote, it grew even further, to 7.6 points.
So neither the GOP nor its leader are doing that well at the moment, particularly on the affordability issues that they now recognize are so crucial to swing voters. Some Republican candidates in 2026 will choose to cleave to Trump even more fiercely, and others may try to achieve some distance, but they’re probably joined at the hip for better or worse.
[ad_2]
Ed Kilgore
Source link
