Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ben Cline (VA-06)
Washington, D.C.— Congressman Ben Cline (VA-06) today released the following statement after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a major budget reconciliation package that delivers meaningful wins for working families, small businesses, and taxpayers in Virginia’s Sixth District.
“Today’s passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill is a big win for the American people and for families across Virginia’s Sixth District,” said Rep. Cline. “While the bill isn’t perfect, it delivers on the core promises House Republicans made—to secure our border, unleash American energy, rein in Washington’s reckless spending, and stop the largest tax hike in our Nation’s history.”
The bill includes sweeping reforms designed to provide relief and stability for hardworking Americans. Among its key provisions, the legislation eliminates taxes on tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest, delivers additional tax relief for seniors, makes no changes to Social Security or Medicare, strengthens Medicaid by cracking down on fraud and protecting access for those who need it most, and ensures robust funding for our national defense.
Congressman Cline also secured the inclusion of one of his top legislative priorities, the Hearing Protection Act, which he sponsored to remove suppressors from the outdated National Firearms Act of 1934.
“I’m proud that this legislation includes portions of the Hearing Protection Act,” Cline added. “This is a long-overdue win for law-abiding gun owners and a key step in defending our Second Amendment rights.”
Cline warned that failure to pass this bill would have severe consequences for families and small businesses in the Sixth District as the Trump tax cuts are set to expire. Without this legislation:
The average taxpayer would face a 26% tax hike
78,150 families would see their Child Tax Credit cut in half
92% of taxpayers would have their Guaranteed Deduction slashed in half
51,860 small businesses would face a 43.4% tax rate if the 199A Small Business Deduction is allowed to expire
8,032 taxpayers would be hit by the return of the Alternative Minimum Tax
7,445 family-owned farms would lose half of their Death Tax exemption next year
The legislation now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
“I hope my colleagues in the Senate will move quickly so we can send this important bill to President Trump’s desk and continue delivering real results for the American people,” Cline said.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Young Kim (CA-39)
Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Representative Young Kim (CA-40) applauded the Senate introduction of companion legislation to her Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act by Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).
This bipartisan, bicameral bill would support Taiwan’s participation in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by ensuring the U.S. governor to the IMF advocates for:
Taiwan’s admission to the IMF as a member;
Taiwan’s participation in the IMF’s regular surveillance activities relating to Taiwan’s economic and financial policies;
Employment opportunities at the IMF for Taiwan nationals; and,
Taiwan’s ability to receive IMF technical assistance and training.
On February 4, 2025, Reps. Kim and Al Green (TX-09) introduced H.R. 910, which passed out of the House Financial Services Committee on March 5, 2025.
“Taiwan – the 21st largest economy in the world and producer of 90 percent of the world’s advanced semiconductor chip supply – doesn’t just deserve a seat at the table at the IMF. The free world needs Taiwan at the IMF,” said Congresswoman Young Kim. “We cannot be complicit as international organizations kowtow to Beijing and silence Taiwan’s voice, which is why I am grateful to Senator McCormick for introducing the Taiwan Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate. I look forward to working in lockstep to get this to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) reintroduced the Strengthening Medicare and Reducing Taxpayer (SMART) Prices Act, legislation to expand Medicare negotiation of drug prices to lower drug costs for consumers, reduce federal spending, and give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stronger tools to negotiate lower drug prices in Medicare Part B and Part D.
This Senators’ legislation builds on their provision passed into law in 2022 which empowered Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices for the first time, unleashing the power of 53 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D Drug Coverage. The SMART Prices Act would extend this progress by more than doubling the number of prescription drugs Medicare must negotiate to a minimum of 50 per year, allowing the most costly prescription drugs and biologics to have negotiated prices five years after approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and by increasing the discount that Medicare is allowed to negotiate.
“Far too many Americans struggle to pay for the prescription drugs they need,” said Senator Welch. “I’m proud to partner with my friend and colleague, Senator Klobuchar, and reintroduce the SMART Prices Act. This bill will build on the Inflation Reduction Act by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate the prices of more prescription drugs and lower the cost of the prescription drugs Vermonters need, faster.”
“No one should have to choose between putting food on the table and affording their medications. This bill builds on our progress to lower prescription drug costs by accelerating Medicare’s ability to negotiate prices for more drugs on behalf of the American people,” said Senator Klobuchar. “We will make prescriptions more affordable and save taxpayers more money by continuing to take on Big Pharma’s price gouging.”
According to preliminary estimates from a model by West Health and Verdant Research, if the SMART Prices Act was enacted in 2026, it would save 33% more by 2030 than current law. It would also allow Medicare to begin negotiations earlier and bring down the price of more expensive drugs.
In addition to Senators Welch and Klobuchar, the SMART Prices Act is cosponsored by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
“Hard-working Nevadans often struggle to afford the high prices of the medications that they rely on,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This common-sense fix builds on the legislation, passed and signed into law by Democrats, that caps insulin at $35 a month and allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices. We will continue to deliver real solutions that lower costs for American families and end Big Pharma’s price gouging.”
“People in the United States are paying four times more than people in similar countries pay for life-saving medications,” said Senator Durbin. “Democrats took the first step to address this issue three years ago by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, to enable Medicare to negotiate with Big Pharma to lower costs for seniors—while every Republican opposed these savings. Now, instead of focusing on lowering prices for Americans, Republicans in Congress are focused on cutting Medicaid to give tax breaks to billionaires. Senate Democrats are introducing the SMART Prices Act tohelp lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, expand on the progress we have made, and improve health care for Americans.”
“No one should be forced to choose between paying for lifesaving prescription drugs and putting food on the table,” said Senator Gillibrand. “This vital, commonsense legislation would help lower the unacceptably high cost of prescription medication for seniors on Medicare. I’m proud to champion this effort, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it passed.”
“In 2023, my colleagues and I took on Big Pharma and moved to help lower prescription drug costs by finally allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of medications. But rather than build upon this important work, the Trump Administration wants to add loopholes and exemptions that weaken this program and result in higher prices for patients,” said Senator Hassan. “This legislation rejects the Trump Administration’s handouts to Big Pharma and instead accelerates the drug price negotiation efforts that will help more people afford the medications that they need.”
“While the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans work to gut Medicare to give massive tax handouts to billionaires like Elon Musk, I’m fighting to protect and strengthen Medicare for New Mexicans,” said Senator Heinrich. “I’m proud to co-sponsor legislation that will lower health care costs by making more prescription drugs affordable for New Mexico’s seniors enrolled in Medicare.”
“Lifesaving prescription medications shouldn’t break the bank,” said Senator King.“Expanding Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices will go a long way toward helping Maine people get the medication they need at a price they can afford. The SMART Prices Act is a commonsense step that will help Maine people save money and stay healthy, and I thank my colleagues for putting Maine people first.”
“No one should have to choose between paying for life-saving medication and putting food on the table. At a time when President Trump’s tariffs threaten to raise prices on everyday goods and medicine, the SMART Prices Act is more important than ever for New Mexican families,” said Senator Luján. “That’s why I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to lower prescription drug costs by strengthening Medicare’s ability to negotiate prices, helping Americans afford the medications they rely on.”
“The amount of money Minnesotans are paying for their medications is out of control & unsustainable,” said Senator Smith. “This legislation would empower Medicare to negotiate lower prices, faster — and for more prescription drugs. And yet here we are, with President Trump and Congressional Republicans sabotaging Medicare’s power to negotiate lower drug prices at every turn, all while raising prices for seniors and giving handouts to Big Pharma. I’ll keep working to get this bill passed and make sure everyone has access to the medication they need.”
“No one should ever have to decide between filling a life-saving prescription and putting gas in the tank or food on the table,” said Senator Merkley. “The Inflation Reduction Act was an important step forward to make sure Americans get the best price, not the worst, for several prescription drugs. President Trump has said he wants to lower drug costs for families and seniors across America, and Senate Democrats are offering real proposals to crack down on Big Pharma’s sky-high drug prices.”
“Drug companies have had a free pass to gouge seniors for decades and people in Connecticut are paying the price,” said Senator Murphy. “It’s time to put an end to the price games. This legislation would give the federal government power to negotiate drugs more quickly after they are approved and with more substantial cost-savings for patients. It’s time to stop the abuse.”
“The prices Americans pay for many medications that treat cancer, diabetes, and other common conditions have actually gone down in recent years thanks to the law Democrats passed in 2022 that forced Big Pharma to the negotiating table with Medicare for the first time ever,” said Senator Murray. “The SMART Prices Act would build on that important progress and expand these savings to more medications, and more people. Donald Trump is lying and making empty promises when it comes to lowering drug costs—meanwhile Republicans are pushing to pass a mega-bill that would rip away health care from millions of people. I’m going to keep fighting to make sure no person is forced to choose between putting food on the table and buying life-saving medication.”
“No one should have to choose between medicine and groceries. Multi-billion-dollar drug corporations are making obscene profits off of seniors and working families struggling just to get by,” said Senator Fetterman. “The SMART Prices Act is not complicated: it will boost Medicare’s ability to negotiate fair deals with pharmaceutical companies and bring drug prices down. Big Pharma lobbyists might hate it, but regular people sure as hell won’t.”
“One of the biggest expenses for seniors on fixed incomes is prescription drug costs. I helped include provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act to lower the prices seniors pay at the pharmacy counter. The SMART Prices Act builds on this progress by strengthening Medicare’s ability to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices,” said Senator Reed.
“Through the Inflation Reduction Act, we stood up to Big Pharma and took important steps to lower health care costs for seniors – empowering Medicare to negotiate lower prices for medications that millions of older Americans rely on. But there’s more we can do. This legislation expands Medicare’s negotiating leverage to cut the prices of even more drugs – a commonsense way to provide more health care cost relief for seniors while saving billions in taxpayer dollars,” said Senator Van Hollen.
“While Republicans in Congress are jamming through a bill that would rip health care away from 14 million Americans and raise drug prices for seniors, we’re doubling down on lowering drug prices and cutting costs for families. We’ll keep fighting to make sure people have access to the life-saving care and medications they need,” said Senator Warren.
“As Republicans move to cut health care, Democrats are working to lower health care and prescription drug costs for our nation’s seniors,” said Senator Whitehouse. “Our SMART Prices Act will build on progress made in our Inflation Reduction Act and strengthen Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices, providing welcome relief to seniors living on fixed incomes.”
The bill is endorsed by Center for American Progress, FamiliesUSA, Patients For Affordable Drugs NOW, Protect Our Care, and Public Citizen.
“The SMART Prices Act builds on the progress of the Inflation Reduction Act to help bring down today’s exorbitant prescription drug prices,” said Andrea Ducas, Vice President of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress. “The bill is an important step forward in holding pharmaceutical companies accountable and ensuring seniors are paying fair and affordable prices for life-saving medications.”
“One in three Americans can’t afford their prescription drugs. We hear from patients every day who are rationing medication or skipping doses because of high drug costs. The SMART Prices Act is a welcome step that builds on the historic drug price reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act byincreasing the number of drugs subject to Medicare negotiation – a proposal that has broad support from Americans on both sides of the aisle. We are grateful to Senator Klobuchar for her tireless leadership on this critical issue and are eager to expand Medicare negotiation to secure a better deal for more patients on Medicare,” said Merith Basey, Executive Director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now.
“Senators Klobuchar and Welch are fighting for seniors and their families by bringing down the high cost of prescription drugs,” said Protect Our Care Chair Leslie Dach. “Americans across the political spectrum support Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices and want to see the program expand. Instead, Trump and his cronies in Congress are charging ahead with their budget that not only guts Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to fund billionaire tax breaks, but hands billions in give-aways over to Big Pharma. The contrast couldn’t be more clear. If Republicans are serious about wanting to lower drug prices and save taxpayer dollars, they should join Senators Klobuchar and Welch in passing the SMART Prices Act and deliver real, lasting relief for the American people.”
“The SMART Prices Act would save billions of dollars by empowering Medicare to negotiate lower prices for more patients sooner. We applaud Senators Klobuchar, Welch, and cosponsors for their leadership. Congressional Republicans should follow their lead instead of seeking to undermine Medicare drug price negotiations and take away health insurance from millions of our society’s most vulnerable people,” said Robert Weissman, Co-President of Public Citizen.
Learn more about the SMART Prices Act.
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
WASHINGTON — In a speech on the Senate floor yesterday, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) called out House Republicans for holding a committee meeting at 1 a.m. to quietly advance then pass a bill that would cut health care and reduce food assistance for millions, as well as promote a dying and dirty fossil fuel energy agenda — all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
“This is a sort of general rule in politics, which is that if you start your meeting at 1 a.m., you’re probably not proud of what you’re doing,” Senator Schatz began. “Republicans in the House know that the bill that they are considering is super unpopular. But they’ve been ordered to pass it anyway. That is what’s happening on the other side of the Capitol right now. House Republicans have convened the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. to advance their tax bill. And it’s because they know this bill stinks.”
“It is the largest wealth transfer in American history… They’re literally taking from the poor — people who don’t have enough money — and shoveling straight into the pockets of people who already have more than enough. This bill is about making the richest people to ever walk the earth even richer,” Senator Schatz continued. “How do they plan to do that? By kicking 14 million Americans off of health insurance and denying food assistance to millions more. People will be turned away at hospitals and go to bed hungry — all so that billionaires have a bit more.”
“Even the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history are still not enough to cover the cost of these enormous giveaways. So the Republicans have turned to one of their favorite punching bags: solving the climate crisis… This is going to raise costs for Americans,” said Senator Schatz. “And so there is a reason they convened at 1 a.m., and it is not because that’s prime time in Hawai‘i. They didn’t convene at 1 a.m. because they like to see each other past midnight. They convened at 1 a.m. because they are about to pass one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that has ever been passed out of the United States House of Representatives.”
The full text of Senator Schatz’s remarks is below. Video is available here.
This is a sort of general rule in politics, which is that if you start your meeting at 1 a.m., you’re probably not proud of what you’re doing. Now, there are some instances in which you start the meeting at 7 p.m. and it goes long, and then you have to vote at whatever hour you finish. But to convene at 1 a.m. is an intentional thing, right? It is to say: “I would very much like if nobody saw what we were up to.” And that’s exactly what happened at 1a.m. today, Wednesday morning.
Republicans in the House know that the bill that they are considering is super unpopular. But they’ve been ordered to pass it anyway. That is what’s happening on the other side of the Capitol right now. House Republicans have convened the Rules Committee at 1:00 a.m. to advance their tax bill. And it’s because they know this bill stinks.
For starters, it is the largest wealth transfer in American history. Think about that—been a lot of wealth transfers in American history, but this is the biggest one in terms of the tax code. It’s not like they’re redistributing wealth among the wealthy. They are literally taking from the poor—people who don’t have enough money—and shoveling it straight into the pockets of people who already have more than enough. This bill is about making the richest people ever to walk the Earth even richer.
How do they plan to do that? By kicking 14 million Americans off of health insurance and denying food assistance to millions more. People will be turned away at hospitals and go to bed hungry—all so that billionaires have a bit more.
You do not need fancy polling to tell you that this is super unpopular. And so Republicans have decided to fix that problem by convening the hearing in the middle of the night, hoping that people will not notice.
The plain facts of the bill are so egregious. And as I started to write these remarks, I had a problem, which is: how do you describe this thing accurately and not sound like you’re frothing at the mouth, like a partisan, and sort of overstating the case? Because this really is kicking 14 million people off of Medicaid, kicking millions more off of food assistance, and then that is the savings that is generated in order to fund these tax cuts for billionaire corporations and the wealthiest people in the United States.
And what happens if something is both true and sounds like a partisan accusation? But that’s where we’re at. This is actually what they’re trying to do. And here’s the thing—even the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history are still not enough to cover the cost of these enormous giveaways. So the Republicans have turned to one of their favorite punching bags: solving the climate crisis.
Never mind that hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested in clean energy across the country—mostly in Republican states and districts. Never mind that those investments are creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs. Never mind that even if you don’t care about any of that, there is a basic principle in running a smart economy and running an investable economy—and that is that when the private sector makes an investment on the basis of the tax code, and they are in the middle of that investment, that you can’t pull the rug out from under them.
And the reason is very simple. Besides fairness—and besides the fact that we are undermining progress toward actually addressing an existential crisis for the planet—it also makes the United States very hard to invest in. Because if you are a business and you are looking at the federal tax code and you’re saying, “I’m going to make a five-, maybe ten-year investment—capital investment—chips, manufacturing, climate, agriculture, hospitality, real estate, transportation, infrastructure, whatever it may be,” but you’re doing it on the basis of what the federal tax code says, and then your investment committee, the board of directors, whomever it may be, will say: “Well, how do we know these things are going to stay on the books?”
And the normal answer is, “Well, come on—the federal government is not going to pull out a tax incentive structure in the middle of your investment and construction cycle.” And the truth is: yes, they are. And so this doesn’t have just climate implications or economic implications in terms of the specific projects. It actually has to do with how stable of an investment climate we establish in the United States of America.
You know, we’re no longer doing “all of the above.” The argument that we used to have between the political parties was: Democrats would say, “We’ve got to transition to clean energy.” Republicans would say, “No, let’s do clean energy, but let’s also do these other things.” But now the Republican position is picking winners and losers—and basically riding the losers into the ground.
Here’s the very tough truth: coal is on the way out, whether you like it or not. But Trump and Republicans would rather revive it for a few more years just to squeeze a couple more years of profitability out of it. Because, after all, their capital investments are fully amortized. So a couple more years of profitability means no more investment, but a couple more years of revenue. And so that’s what they’re doing.
This is going to raise costs for Americans. Let’s be clear—this is going to raise costs for Americans.
There was a time—and I was part of these debates in the state of Hawai‘i—there was a time when there was a tradeoff between how much consumers had to pay and our climate objectives. But those trends have changed. So now wind is the cheapest form of energy. Nuclear is among the cheapest forms of energy. Solar is among the cheapest forms of energy.
For me, in the state of Hawai‘i, to bring in low-sulfur fuel oil on a fuel tanker and then light it on fire for electrons is the single dumbest thing you could do—even if you didn’t care about climate. It is simply cheaper. It is simply cheaper for consumers, and businesses, and for the climate crisis, and therefore our ability to fiscally manage the climate crisis, as we see increasing disasters—both in their severity and how often they happen.
And then every, what, year, year and a half, we do a $150 billion emergency supplemental because there are now wildfires where there have never been wildfires, floods where there have never been floods, tornadoes where there have never been tornadoes. This is not made up. Nobody gets to deny this anymore.
And so there is a reason they convened at 1:00 a.m., and it is not because that’s prime time in Hawai`i. They didn’t convene at 1:00 a.m. because they like to see each other past midnight. They convened at 1:00 a.m. because they are about to pass one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that has ever been passed out of the United States House of Representatives.
And I just wonder why. If I’m a House member and I’m being told, “We’re going to make all these changes—all these things that you’re voting for are going to be excised from the Senate version, don’t worry”—well, my view would be: if you’re going to fix all that stuff, why are you making me vote on it now? Why are you making me vote on it now?
And the answer is very simple: Donald Trump showed up in the caucus, used a couple of expletives. They implied that voting no is a betrayal—that standing up for your constituents is a betrayal. And I think they’re all going to fall in line. And so it is up to the United States Senate to fix this bill or kill this bill. And so that’s the task in front of us. And I am hoping that cooler heads prevail. I know there are a number of Republicans that hate these Medicaid cuts. I know there are a number of Republicans who have a ton of clean energy investment in their state.
And there’s plenty of political room to criticize the Biden administration or say “I’m against the Green New Deal” and still be for wind, and solar, and nuclear, and geothermal, and agriculture that’s done in a more climate-friendly way. All of that is available to us. We don’t have to do things in the maximally unpopular way. But the Speaker apparently wants to do it that way.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the European Space Agency (Esa). It has launched spectacularly successful missions, but is different to other space agencies which generally represent one country. Esa is funded by 23 member states and also has cooperation agreements with nations such as Canada.
Esa operates cutting edge spacecraft designed to monitor the Earth, as well as space telescopes that study the distant cosmos. It has launched robotic spacecraft to other planets and to objects such as comets. It is also involved in human spaceflight – training European astronauts to work on the International Space Station (ISS).
These are hugely successful achievements. But the agency now faces challenges as competition heats up among newer space powers such as China and India.
The history of Esa can be traced to events immediately after the second world war, when many European scientists moved to either the US or to the Soviet Union. Many of them realised that projects supported only by a single nation could not compete with those supported by the two big geopolitical players at the time.
This motivated the physicists Pierre Auger, from France, and Edoardo Amaldi, from Italy, to propose a European organisation that would carry out space research and would be “purely scientific”.
In 1962, two agencies were created. One of these, the European Launch Development Organisation (ELDO), would concentrate on developing a rocket. The other, the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO), would focus on developing robotic spacecraft. Both were joined together in 1975 to form the European Space Agency.
The push to build a European rocket would eventually yield the Ariane launcher, which is operated by the French company Arianespace.
The first satellite to be launched under the banner of the newly formed European Space Agency was Cos-B. This spacecraft was designed to monitor a high energy form of radiation called gamma rays, being emitted from objects in space.
Esa collaborated with other space agencies on the Hubble Space Telescope. ESA/NASA
In 1978, Esa cooperated with Nasa and the UK on the International Ultraviolet Explorer mission. This space telescope was designed to observe the cosmos in ultraviolet light, something that cannot be done from Earth.
The agency would later collaborate with Nasa and the Canadian Space Agency on one of the most successful space telescopes of all time: Hubble. Launched in 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope helped confirm the expansion rate of the universe and showed that black holes are at the cores of almost all galaxies. Hubble’s stunning images also changed the way that many people saw the universe. Esa funded one of the original instruments on the space telescope, the Faint Object Camera, and provided the first two solar arrays.
The space agency is also a partner on the revolutionary James Webb Telescope, which launched in 2021. Esa contributed two of the telescope’s instruments: the Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NirSpec) and the Mid-Infrared Instrument (Miri).
Solar System missions
Esa has also launched pioneering missions to other planets and objects in our solar system. The first of these was the Giotto comet explorer. This robotic spacecraft flew past Halley’s comet in 1986 and was successfully woken up in 1992 to study a comet called Grigg-Skejllerup.
A second successful cometary mission followed when the Rosetta spacecraft entered orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 2014. Rosetta despatched a lander called Philae to touch down on the comet’s surface.
Rosetta has been my favourite of all Esa achievements, simply due to the pure audacity of attempting to land on an object whose shape and composition was until then only sparsely known. In order to “land” on an object with low gravity, Philae was to have deployed harpoons that would attach the lander to the surface. These systems did not work, but the overall mission was a success, leading to high levels of engagement from the public.
Besides comets, Esa launched one of the most successful missions to the red planet: Mars Express. The spacecraft entered orbit around Mars in 2003 and has played a key role in enhancing understanding of our planetary neighbour. It is expected to continue working until at least 2034. Mars Express also carried the ill-fated British Beagle 2 spacecraft to Mars. This was supposed to land in 2003, but contact was never established with the probe, which is presumed to have been damaged while touching down.
In 2005, Esa’s Huygens spacecraft landed on Titan, Saturn’s largest moon. This was the furthest from Earth that a spacecraft has ever landed. These are all outward facing missions, but Esa has also had major success with projects to study what’s going on here on Earth. These include the Envisat satellite, which operated from 2002-2012, and the Sentinel series of spacecraft, which have operated from 2014 to the present.
These have helped map agriculture and forests, understand the Earth’s climate, track ice, and monitor atmospheric ozone. In addition, the Galileo navigation satellites are providing a high precision alternative to GPS.
Esa is also a major player in human spaceflight, having been a partner in the International Space Station project since 1993. It has built sections of the ISS, including the Columbus laboratory, launched in 2008, and the Cupola viewing window, which gives astronauts panoramic views of Earth. The agency’s astronauts regularly spend time on the ISS as crew and could even fly to the Moon under Nasa’s Artemis programme.
Since the 1990s, Esa has frequently collaborated with Nasa – often very successfully. However, this relationship has also faced challenges. In the wake of the financial crisis, for example, Nasa cancelled its participation in several collaborative missions with Esa. Under a proposed Nasa budget this year, the US space agency may again cancel its involvement with the joint Nasa-Esa Mars Sample Return mission.
Esa’s future
Times have changed in the space industry since Esa’s founding 50 years ago. Major countries such as China, India and Japan all have their own space programmes. Esa faces considerable financial pressures to compete with them.
Nevertheless, Esa is working on strengthening its space exploration and launch capabilities through the use of a commercial space port in Norway.
It has also put together a long-term strategy for 2040. This document highlights important areas where Esa can play a major role, including protecting Earth and its climate, continued missions to explore space and also efforts to boost European growth and competitiveness.
All this should strengthen and secure the agency for the future. Through a mixture of developing its own missions and collaborating with other agencies and commercial partners on others, Esa should be a major player in space exploration for decades to come.
Daniel Brown does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Pseudonyms are used in this article; interviewees who asked for their real names to be used are asterisked.
In 2016, one of us (Kath) attended New Normal, a conference in London which opposed LGBT+ rights, including lesbian parenting and gender recognition. As a lesbian parent, I was upset by what was said – and by the way people stood to applaud speakers who warned of the dangers of parents like me, while mentioning the need to “protect children”.
Yet that conference also opened my eyes to my – and perhaps, many other people’s – lack of understanding of what it can mean to stand against the apparent state-supported, liberal consensus on such issues. On day two, the organisers appealed for help for the parents of a trans or gender-diverse child. My notes from that day read:
The parents feel they are not listened to, and are ‘encouraged by social services’ to treat ‘her’ like a boy. But social services have only known ‘her’ for six months – so they don’t know ‘her’. The parents are told if they don’t agree to a name change, it is neglectful and that she is suicidal. The mother argues: ‘We love our daughter.’
Unexpectedly and conflictually, I found myself relating to the parents’ story in some way. And I wondered how I would feel as a same-sex parent if I was ever in a situation where my child rejected their family as a “moral abomination”.
These thoughts proved a starting point for Beyond Opposition – our project which, since 2020, has been looking at the lives of people who are reticent about or object to the perceived liberalising of societies’ sexual and gender laws in Great Britain, Ireland and Canada.
The idea of this research is not to defend their positions. Nor is it to explore their politics around sexualities and genders, which we and many others do in research into anti-gender movements. Rather, we wanted to understand the experiences that might drive these politics.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
As far back as 2012, prompted by my colleague, urban geographer Catherine Nash, I (Kath) began noticing an evolution in arguments against changes like same-sex marriage, gender recognition and relationship and sexuality education in schools – an evolution that was not always fully recognised, or even noticed, by supporters of these changes. People who objected to such societal shifts were sometimes being politicised through court cases around their work and their children’s experiences at school.
For Beyond Opposition, we put a call out to people who opposed or had concerns about changing laws and policies related to gender, sexuality or abortion. As well as contacting organisations and activists who actively campaigned against these changes, we used social media to reach out to people who had no connections with these groups.
In more than 160 interviews between 2020 and 2022, we explored the daily experiences of living outside the social consensus in three countries where, at the time, there was broad legal, political and social agreement in favour of same-sex marriage, abortion, gender self-identification and related policies. The surprising diversity of positions and experiences we heard not only shed new light on how societies were changing; they painted a sometimes disturbing picture of how these shifts were being challenged and resisted.
Not all far-right
In the 1990s in secondary school, I would have been completely open about my view on [abortion], because it was a more accepted view, I suppose … [Now] I have this view and don’t feel I can even express it [because] everyone else disagrees … I feel like I can’t even say this to anyone.
We first met Niamh in 2021, three years after Ireland’s historic referendum to repeal one of the EU’s strictest legal barriers to abortion, which led to limited access to abortion care. Where once her anti-abortion views were considered mainstream, in Ireland and many other countries where abortion is accepted legally and socially, now her views are in the minority.
Niamh was clear she did not regard herself as “conservative” and said she was strongly in favour of human rights. She told us: “If I have to categorise myself, I’d categorise myself as ‘pro-life’.” But she expressed frustration at how people assumed this position automatically predicted what she thought about other topics relating to gender and sexuality, explaining:
There’s this thing that’s like: [because] you’re against abortion, you’re against same-sex marriage or against refugees coming into the country … I struggle with it because the people in my circle on social justice issues are not usually aligned with my [anti-abortion] position. They tend to have the opposite view – [mine] tends to be seen as a really conservative stance, not a rights-based stance.
Niamh, like many of our interviewees, expressed views quite differently from the organisations opposing sexual and gender equalities that I (Kath) had encountered in earlier research. While those organisations were diverse, they were often aligned on abortion, same-sex marriage and gender recognition. This contrasted with the differences that people such as British woman Jane identified when we met her.
“I wouldn’t want to sit down in a room with somebody who said gay people were going to hell,” Jane told us. “We just wouldn’t have anything to talk about.” But she also felt it would be “impossible to have a conversation with somebody who does not believe in the existence of biological sex”.
While Jane objected to trans rights being “given primacy”, she thought of herself as different to people who are seen as anti-gender activists. Describing herself as “gender critical”, she said: “Why this is so toxic and has started to spill out into my day-to-day life is that we are all just lumped under one umbrella of hate.”
Like many of our interviewees, Jane objected to being placed in a single category that, in her experience, carries overwhelmingly negative associations. She told us her daily life was being affected because people attributed opinions to her that she considers hateful.
On the whole, public attitudes across the EU and Canada still favour a broadening of gender and sexual inclusion. But academic research on changing social norms relating to gender and sexuality is largely silent on how these changes can affect those who “do not agree”.
Many of our interviewees emphasised their distance from other people who held similar views. Indeed, this sentiment of not fitting a stereotype was so common that we still have no single phrase to describe the group of people we spoke to. Common terms like “anti-gender” or “far-right” were rejected by most participants.
Yet we found the experiences they described had a lot in common. James, in Ireland, said he “came down towards the ‘no’ side” in the 2018 Irish abortion referendum, yet the social associations of this troubled him:
I definitely wouldn’t ever go on a pro-life parade or protest, or anything like that. I see those people [as] ultra-religious conservatives who are not free-thinking, who want to just force their opinions on other people. There’s no way I could ever want to be associated with people like that.
While most interviewees resisted the stereotypes they say get assigned to their position, pushing back against being seen as anti-rights or anti-equalities, some did express positions more in line with a stereotypical anti-gender activist. Brian in Canada, for example, told us he was “in a pro-life Catholic Christian bubble”, and that he would not welcome gay or trans people into his home for dinner.
‘I don’t feel comfortable in my own house’
Anne, a Canadian woman who described herself as a feminist with gender-critical opinions, said she had withdrawn from her volunteer work supporting survivors of sexual violence because she recognised that “my gender-critical opinions are really toxic to others”.
But the relationship that most troubled her was with her daughter. Anne described how her home life had been significantly affected by her interest in “gender-critical” content:
In my house, which should be the place where I feel the most comfortable, at no time do I discuss these things. If I’m watching a video with these concerns, or am online in some way with these concerns, when my daughter who lives with me comes into the room, I turn it off. So I don’t feel at all comfortable in my own house.
Anne was distressed by the impact her gender-critical position had on her relationship with her daughter. She recognised that content she sometimes viewed was considered “toxic” by many people, including her daughter, and expressed sadness about the damage this had done to their relationship:
It’s very saddening to me because my daughter and I are so close, but this has become a barrier. It has become a block. The only time we talked about it at length, we were both in tears.
We heard a number of stories like Anne’s, of close relationships becoming deeply fractured by differences on such topics. These interviewees felt their positions were fundamentally opposed by family members. Some, conscious of the tensions, kept their views to themselves even in their own home. As a result of her differences with her daughter, Anne said: “I don’t speak to her about anything in order to keep peace in the house.”
Ciara, a leftwing Irishwoman who voted against abortion in the 2018 referendum, described the careful way she navigated her friendships, recognising that her friend group would hold very different views to her on abortion:
You kind of judge the friendship a little bit. Can this friendship take this news that I voted ‘no’? [Laughs] I’ve lied – I’ve told others I voted ‘yes’.
Ciara noted that in her everyday life, it was generally assumed everybody was pro-choice – as she had once been. She was not religious and, like many of our interviewees, distanced herself from rightwing politics.
But in her family and among her friends, being against abortion was automatically understood as being rightwing, so she kept quiet about it. This made her question herself, resulting in what she described as “a whole range of inner dilemmas”:
You strategise – you suss out, like, how is this going to go down? How is this going to impact on this friendship? And on trust – how will I be seen?
Keeping quiet among friends and family makes concerned, oppositional positions harder to see and understand. So, it is possible for researchers and others to deny these positions exist – and to not address their impact. Many people spoke to us on condition that their identities would be concealed – something that came across especially strongly when they spoke about their fears at work.
‘At work, I can’t risk my livelihood’
Work is central to many people’s lives. Tammy* from Canada, who described herself as “not a pro-gay person, just a pro-people person”, told us she felt uncomfortable with some workplace inclusion policies, such as Pride month:
At work, we have an app on our phone and … for gay pride, in June, the whole month is just devoted to that history, right? And it annoys me because it’s like: OK, I get it … [but] I don’t like people trying to program me.
The promotion of LGBTQ+ rights through corporate platforms made Tammy feel suspicious. Other Beyond Opposition participants went further, fearing their jobs could be at risk.
For Cindy, who is also from Canada and described herself as “dabbling in gender-critical feminism”, her position was out-of-line with her workplace. Her employer took positive actions to promote LGBTQ+ inclusion. She felt that to object to such actions might “risk my livelihood, so I can’t even broach the subject”.
It was not only the owners and managers who Cindy feared would view her “as a bigot”. She also worried that colleagues might cause conflict for her if she expressed her position outside the workplace consensus.
Like others in our research, Cindy deliberately stayed out of activism. But during her mandatory workplace training, she said: “The whole time I’m biting my tongue.” Her concern was that she might be obliged to take an action that she didn’t believe in:
If anyone were ever to say: ‘Go around the room and say your preferred pronouns,’ I’m not sure how I would answer that because I don’t believe in the ideology of preferred pronouns. I worry that if I just said something like: ‘No thank you, I don’t believe in it,’ that might actually cause me to lose my job.
Workplace inclusion policies, training and practices have been shown to be effective in improving workplaces in terms of their productivity and wellbeing for employees – although in some cases, they can be poorly implemented and insufficient. But some of the people we spoke to, including Tammy and Cindy, described them as “feared” and “hated”.
Mark went even further, suggesting he was being asked to deny his “moral values” – and that his work would not be secure if he didn’t. A freelance worker in rural Ireland, Mark believed he needed to “keep his head down” with regard to his views on sexuality and abortion:
I’m self-employed … I can say it here to you but I’m certainly not shouting about this in the pub. I depend on the milk of human kindness from people.
Some of our interviewees have used the law to challenge employers where their jobs were lost or under threat. Most had not experienced any official sanctions – yet many feared them. Cindy said that as a result, she kept her views to herself at work: “I guess I choose harmony and peace over being right.”
It is these “quiet concerns” at work and among family and friends – of people who are not vocal in opposition to changing laws and policies, but still act against them – that we believe are not well documented or understood. And our research shows that in their experience of being negatively labelled and having their experiences dismissed or minimised, some have been driven to look beyond their usual communities to find support for their views.
Although most people in our study are not activists and did not seek to be public about their views, many quietly supported those who were, or engaged with them to find support for their views.
Those who felt uncomfortable talking to people in their own circles often told us about how they had found support elsewhere. Suzy, a British woman who said she was gender critical, described the first meeting she had attended that opposed trans rights:
I just happened to make the decision to go [to a conference run by an organisation opposing gender self-identification] on my own … I had nobody in my life at that point who was a feminist who had these views. It’s why I went by myself. And I met some really amazing women who just completely welcomed me into this world. That opened a lot of doors for me.
Suzy’s experience was echoed by others who had concerns about trans rights or gender recognition. Such groups were not always public, and some organised in secret – something Suzy believed was unjust but necessary, because of the distance from the social consensus of people who held views like hers:
There is a private online messaging app – you have to be invited. I had to be vetted … to make sure I was a real person – [that] I wasn’t trying to infiltrate. It’s so ridiculous that we are having to jump through these hoops just to talk about it and express our opinion about something that for a really long time was okay to think. Now all of a sudden, it’s not okay to think this way. So you’re a societal pariah.
At the time of our interview in 2020, Suzy was actively involved in organising to oppose the proposed amendments to the UK’s Gender Recognition Act. She had moved from having “nobody in my life … who was a feminist who had those views”, to participating in an organised campaign to influence this legislation:
I wouldn’t necessarily describe myself as an activist – I think that word is quite a bit loaded in negative connotations now … I prefer the term ‘campaigner’ because what I started to get involved in was campaigning for the law not to be changed. I wasn’t going out on marches or anything like that.
Proposals to update the Act in line with international human rights standards stalled and then were halted in the UK from 2018 onwards, with the support of civil society campaigners including Suzy. Since then, other campaigns have had greater successes – including, most recently, a Supreme Court ruling defining “sex” as “biological sex” in the 2010 Equality Act.
‘I’m not saying that I am right’
For the many people who have spent years campaigning for gender equality and to improve LGBTQ+ lives, it is possible to understand the day-to-day accounts of our interviewees as evidence of success. Many told us they could not now express opinions on others’ relationships, sexual activity or their decisions about pregnancy and parenthood in some workplaces – and sometimes even at home.
For some interviewees, this shift was expressed as fear, where their positions were seen to negatively affect them at work even if they didn’t express them openly. They didn’t feel able to raise questions about gender and sexual equality or abortion at work or in their volunteering and organising spaces.
It is possible to understand this shift as a welcome victory for equalities. But our research highlights that, for many people who maintain reticence to these societal changes, the ability to reconsider or change their position has been reduced by their day-to-day work, social and family experiences.
Cindy, for example, expressed a moment of doubt about her concerns about trans rights, admitting: “I’m not saying that I am right. Like, there is the possibility I’m not …” However, this reflective stance was not encouraged by experiences of work that she described as forcing her to “bite my tongue”.
She and others told us the implementation of inclusion policies and training in their workplaces felt paradoxical – because they’d had the effect of making their own behaviour less inclusive. Cindy admitted she was less inclined to question herself because of the way she felt her views were treated.
Mark, the freelance worker in Ireland, considered himself “very leftwing” and said he would “always defend the underdog”. But he told us people like him were “very much put off” by what he saw as the “tactics of what now are leftwing liberal policies”. His experiences of feeling outside the consensus, and fearing a loss of employment opportunities, meant he – and others we interviewed – were less open to engaging sympathetically with the experiences of sexual- and gender-minoritised people.
Fear, upset and discomfort from social change
While stories like Niamh’s and Cindy’s are sometimes used to argue that transformations have “gone too far”, research does not support this argument. In fact, those “left out in the cold” are typically the LGBTQ+ people whose needs are not being met by policies like same-sex marriage (or who remain excluded from these policies), and those seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare in all its forms.
Our interviewees do not negate this. They highlight the fear, upset and discomfort that results from social change for some people who hold firm to their positions opposing or questioning provisions such as abortion, same-sex marriage, gender recognition. In research, these everyday experiences are rarely considered beyond their political views (assumed to be rightwing) and how to explain or change them.
Our interviewees believe their positions are frequently mis-characterised and conflated in the media and by policymakers in order to dismiss them – and therefore, that their experiences go unseen and unrecognised. And in their experience of being outsiders – feeling labelled and minimised – they may, like Suzy, find their way to actively opposing legislation and social change that benefits LGBTQ+ people and/or those who need abortion rights. Some offered quiet support to political causes, including donating their time or money.
The world today is very different even to 2022, when we finished the Beyond Opposition interviews. The UK has seen some fundamental shifts especially regarding gender recognition, including the recent Supreme Court ruling that defined “sex” as “biological sex” in the 2010 Equality Act.
In the US, providing affirmative care to trans children was deemed “mutilation” in recent executive orders from the president, Donald Trump, which stated that offering support to trans and gender-diverse children against their families’ will would be considered as “child abuse”.
As the struggle for rights continues, we believe it’s essential for research, policy and practice to pay attention to the full range of impacts of the divisions that drive much of today’s politics. Experiences like those of the parents at the conference mentioned at the start of this article, who felt that affirming their child’s gender identity went against their beliefs, contribute to the shape of the world we all live in.
It is possible to have a clear and firm view on the rights of trans and gender-diverse children, while also considering the implications for society of the experiences (as distinct from the opinions and arguments) of those who disagree. It feels important to do this now in places where some of us – lesbian parents, parents of trans kids and others – are still (somewhat) protected by the system, as we find ourselves, in the US and elsewhere, once again labelled “a danger to children”.
For the second phase of Beyond Opposition, we brought people together from very different positions to see if they could imagine a world where they could live together, without seeking to change each other’s minds. We wanted to know if there were new ways of thinking about the problem of division, which recognised that some differences may be here to stay.
Our intention was not to debate, negotiate or resolve their differences, but to explore the idea that it may be necessary to live together without ever agreeing on aspects related to gender, sexuality or abortion. One key outcome of these workshops was a number of moments in which participants met a complete impasse – where they had to acknowledge that their utopia could not accommodate the other person’s position at all.
This is a starting point for important questions about not being able to change someone else’s mind, yet still needing to share places with them. We hope to write more on this subject soon.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Dr. Carol Ballantine researches genders, sexualities and violence. She worked as the Ireland and UK postdoctoral researcher on Beyond Opposition, funded by the ERC.
This article is funded by work undertaken under the ERC Grant No: 81789 granted to Kath Browne and also receives EU Horizon Europe funding. She has worked for LGBTQIA+ organisations is affiliated with LinQ.
An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Backlog is down 25% under second Trump Administration
WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs announced today that its disability benefits compensation claims backlog is under 200,000 for the first time since March 5, 2023.
A VA claim is considered backlogged once it has been pending for more than 125 days. Since President Trump was inaugurated Jan. 20, the backlog has dropped from 264,717 to 198,378, a 25% reduction.
The backlog reduction VA announced today was made possible through a series of record-breaking production milestones, including:
Processing a million disability claims during a fiscal year faster than ever before.
The highest monthly production rate in VA history in April, with 256,178 claims processed.
The highest daily production rate in VA history May 20, with over 15,000 claims processed.
“Under President Trump, VA’s claims processing productivity is the highest it has ever been, and we will continue working overtime on behalf of Veterans until the backlog is at record lows,” said VA Secretary Doug Collins. “Veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve timely and accurate claims decisions, and that is exactly what we will deliver.”
Backlog Background Info
The Biden Administration oversaw a 24% increase in the backlog, from 213,189 on Jan. 20, 2021, to 264,717 on Jan. 20, 2025.
VA’s backlog reached its highest point ever of 611,000 in March of 2013.
VA achieved its lowest backlog ever of 64,738 in December of 2019.
Reporters and media outlets with questions or comments should contact the Office of Media Relations at vapublicaffairs@va.gov
Veterans with questions about their health care and benefits (including GI Bill). Questions, updates and documents can be submitted online.
Contact us online through Ask VA
Veterans can also use our chatbot to get information about VA benefits and services. The chatbot won’t connect you with a person, but it can show you where to go on VA.gov to find answers to some common questions.
Learn about our chatbot and ask a question
Subscribe today to receive these news releases in your inbox.
Source: United States Senator for North Dakota John Hoeven
05.22.25
Senator Discusses Need for More Competitive & Transparent Cattle Market, Urges Nominee to Push Back on Barriers to U.S. Beef Exports
WASHINGTON – At a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee this week, Senator John Hoeven discussed efforts to strengthen market opportunities for the nation’s cattle industry. With Mr. Dudley Hoskins, the nominee to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Hoeven outlined the need to:
Fully enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act to help ensure more competitive and transparent cattle markets.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee, Hoeven has worked to provide additional funding for the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to enforce the law and investigate anti-competitive practices.
Hoskins highlighted the Cattle Contract Library pilot program that Hoeven established as an example of how to create greater price transparency for cattle producers.
Secure fair access to foreign markets for U.S. beef producers and push back against artificial barriers impacting U.S. exports.
“There is a real need for greater price discovery in cattle markets, which would provide our ranchers with more transparency and access to a more competitive market. That’s a win for both producers and consumers,” said Hoeven “Between our efforts to ensure enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, advance my Cattle Contract Library pilot program and reinstate MCOOL, we’re working to strengthen the U.S. domestic cattle market. At the same time, we need to remove artificial trade barriers used to block U.S. livestock producers from accessing foreign markets. That’s why we support the Trump administration as it works to secure better trade deals for U.S. ag producers. We look forward to working with Mr. Hoskins to continue advancing these priorities.”
In addition, Hoeven invited Dr. Scott Hutchins, the nominee to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics, to visit North Dakota to learn firsthand about:
The state’s leadership in precision agriculture technology development, including the innovative work occurring under the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) partnership at Grand Farm.
The Agricultural Risk Policy Center (ARPC) that Hoeven has worked to stand up at North Dakota State University (NDSU). The center will:
Help address farm and agribusiness challenges through in-depth policy and economic analysis.
• • Complement the work conducted at similar centers currently housed at the University of Missouri, Texas A&M University and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Governor Gavin Newsom announced today that the state will file a lawsuit as Republicans in the U.S. Senate target California’s clean vehicles program.
“With these votes, Senate Republicans are bending the knee to President Trump once again,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution. As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.”
“This Senate vote is illegal,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.”
Background
Under the direction of President Trump, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transmitted three California waivers – for the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII), Omnibus and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulations – to Congress as rules subject to Congressional Review Act (CRA) procedures. Earlier in the month, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives illegally used the CRA to attempt to undo these waivers, which authorize California’s clean cars and trucks regulations. This move breaks with decades of bipartisan recognition that these waivers are not “rules” subject to the CRA and directly contradicts the determinations of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian, both of whom concluded that the CRA’s process does not apply to California’s waivers.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set federal emission standards for air pollutants from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines that cause or contribute to air pollution and endanger public health or welfare. Under the Clean Air Act, California may adopt emission requirements independent from EPA’s regulations, and EPA is required to waive preemption for those requirements, absent certain limited circumstances not present here.
For more than 50 years, California has exercised its right under the Clean Air Act to pursue solutions that address the persistent air pollution challenges that our state faces.
Source: United States Senator for Kentucky Mitch McConnell
WASHINGTON, DC – Kentucky’s bipartisan federal delegation, led by Dean of the House Hal Rogers (KY-05), including U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, Congressmen Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Andy Barr (KY-06), James Comer (KY-01), Thomas Massie (KY-04) and Morgan McGarvey (KY-03), sent a letter to President Donald Trump expressing their support for Governor Andy Beshear’s request for the third major disaster declaration of the year for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The request comes as a result of devastating storms, including an EF4 tornado that took the lives of at least 19 individuals in southern Kentucky since May 16, 2025.
“This severe weather event has resulted in catastrophic damage, and 19 Kentuckians have lost their lives. Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed or severely damaged, with homes, businesses and essential infrastructure suffering widespread loss. Critical roadways have been washed out, vital utilities disabled, and basic government services disrupted. The storm’s destruction spans more than 600 miles across the Commonwealth,” the letter stated. “We urge your swift approval of federal disaster assistance to help Kentucky communities begin the process of recovering and rebuilding.”
The National Weather Service’s final report confirmed an EF4 tornado traveled over 55 miles through Russell, Pulaski and Laurel counties, staying on the ground for an hour and a half with winds reaching a peak of 170 miles per hour.
President Trump has already approved two major disaster declarations for Kentucky, including:
Declaration DR-4860 was approved after a deadly severe storm on February 14, 2025 that caused widespread flooding, resulting in the loss of least 22 lives in Kentucky. More than $43 million have been approved for Individual Assistance, with 6,895 applications approved.
Declaration DR-4864 was approved after a deadly severe storm, beginning on April 2, 2025, that caused historic flooding, resulting in the loss of at least seven lives in Kentucky. The flooding, landslides, mudslides and tornadoes impacted 85 counties in Kentucky.
Click here to download the delegation’s joint letter to President Trump.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)
Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) today issued the following statement in response to Judge Myong J. Joun’s order blocking the Trump Administration and the “Department of Government Efficiency’s” (DOGE) illegal efforts to gut the Department of Education and mandating the reinstatement of wrongfully terminated staff:
“This ruling is a victory for millions of students, educators, and families across the country who rely on the Department of Education’s programs, protections, and support. Judge Joun accurately determined that the Trump Administration and DOGE’s political purge of the Department of Education was unlawful and reaffirmed that the executive branch cannot unilaterally work toward abolishing a congressionally established agency without the approval of Congress. I am grateful that thanks to Judge Joun’s ruling, more than 1,300 wrongfully terminated employees must be reinstated to fulfill the Department’s statutorily mandated functions.
“Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Linda McMahon’s actions – reductions in force and the eliminations of entire offices, including key Office for Civil Rights (OCR) hubs – inhibited the Department from being able to carry out its statutory obligations. Their abuse of the federal civil service targeted attorneys, student aid workers, and civil rights office staff and had detrimental effects on our schools. It left millions of students and teachers without essential services they need, including the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and support for students with disabilities. Their attempted purge of the Department of Education is a direct assault on the protection of student’s rights and the promise of equal opportunity through education. It was a gross betrayal of American students.
“Today’s decision brings much-needed relief for students, educators, our public servants in the Department of Education, and civil rights across the country. It restores the rule of law and sends a clear message that our nation’s promise of equal educational opportunity cannot be unraveled by political whim.”
Beyer has been critical of illegal attempts by the Trump Administration and “DOGE” to dismantle the Department of Education, and has led efforts to restore the Department’s ability to fulfill its statutorily required mandates. He also met with Education Secretary Linda McMahon to discuss the serious harm these actions inflicted upon his constituents, and on students and educators across the country.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ted Lieu (33 District of California)
WASHINGTON –Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) issued the following statement after House Republicans passed the Big, Ugly Bill that gave tax breaks to billionaires at the expense of everyday Americans.
“In the middle of the night, Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump rammed through the largest cuts to health care in American history. I’m furious. Every single Democrat voted NO on cuts to health care and food assistance, but Republicans were desperate to please President Trump and pass his bill to slash Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to give tax breaks to billionaires.
“House Democrats fought like hell to stop this by shining light on House Republicans’ clandestine meetings and offering over 500 amendments to delay the bill. The fight is not over. We’ll continue to listen to the American people who feel betrayed. We will continue to fight for lower costs for goods, groceries, and healthcare.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)
Severe storms resulted in extensive damage to critical infrastructure, parks, cultural sites, schools, public buildings, and more, resulting in over $34 million dollars in damages across six counties
Letter comes following denial of initial request, WA delegation urges President Trump to reconsider and approve WA state’s pending appeal
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), U.S. Representatives Suzan DelBene (D, WA-01), Rick Larsen (D, WA-02), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, WA-03), Dan Newhouse, (R, WA-04), Michael Baumgartner (R, WA-05), Emily Randall (D, WA-06), Pramila Jayapal (D, WA-07), Kim Schrier (D, WA-08), Adam Smith (D, WA-09), and Marilyn Strickland (D, WA-10) SENT a letter last night to President Donald Trump urging him to reconsider the denial of Washington state’s request for a Major Disaster Declaration as a result of the devastating windstorms, heavy rainfall, flooding, and mudslides caused by a bomb cyclone that struck Washington state in November 2024.
“As representatives of Washington state, we earnestly request that you carefully reconsider this decision and approve the state’s pending appeal without further delay,” the bipartisan, bicameral group of Members wrote.
“From Grays Harbor, Pacific and Wahkiakum to King, Snohomish, and Walla Walla Counties, the storm’s impact was severe, far-reaching and well-documented. One of the most destructive storms in recent history, it overwhelmed public infrastructure, endangered lives, and left residents across the state grappling with long-term consequences. This is precisely the kind of catastrophic event for which the federal declaration process was designed. The state’s request outlines over $34 million in damages across these six counties—costs that local governments cannot and should not be expected to shoulder alone,” the Members wrote.
“Disaster declarations are not symbolic, they are critical lifelines for communities in crisis. Washington state’s first responders, local governments, and emergency management professionals have done everything within their means to begin recovery, but the scale of the damage requires federal support through the Public Assistance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Anything less unnecessarily places our communities, infrastructure and long-term stability at an unacceptable risk.”
“We remain committed to working with you to secure the support our constituents urgently need,” the Members concluded.
Previously, the full group of Members—led by Senator Murray—urged President Biden to grant the request for a Major Disaster Declaration in January.
The full text of the letter is available HERE and below.
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to express our serious disappointment and growing concern regarding the denial of Washington state’s request for a Major Disaster Declaration following the devastating bomb cyclone that struck between November 17 and November 25, 2024. As representatives of Washington state, we earnestly request that you carefully reconsider this decision and approve the state’s pending appeal without further delay.
From Grays Harbor, Pacific and Wahkiakum to King, Snohomish, and Walla Walla Counties, the storm’s impact was severe, far-reaching and well-documented. One of the most destructive storms in recent history, it overwhelmed public infrastructure, endangered lives, and left residents across the state grappling with long-term consequences. This is precisely the kind of catastrophic event for which the federal declaration process was designed. The state’s request outlines over $34 million in damages across these six counties—costs that local governments cannot and should not be expected to shoulder alone.
Disaster declarations are not symbolic, they are critical lifelines for communities in crisis. Washington state’s first responders, local governments, and emergency management professionals have done everything within their means to begin recovery, but the scale of the damage requires federal support through the Public Assistance Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Anything less unnecessarily places our communities, infrastructure and long-term stability at an unacceptable risk.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We remain committed to working with you to secure the support our constituents urgently need.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John James (Michigan 10th District)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Representative John James (MI-10) voted yes. The passage of this bill signifies a critical step in codifying President Donald Trump’s America First Agenda.
Rep. James issued the following statement regarding the bill passage:
“In November, the American people gave Donald Trump and Republicans a mandate to secure the border, lower costs, fuel economic growth, and put America First. The One Big Beautiful bill restores fiscal responsibility to Washington while safeguarding vital programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It strengthens border security, including at our Northern border, and fosters a pro-growth, pro-family economy that prioritizes working-class Americans. This is a huge win for Michigan and the entire country. President Trump and House Republicans are delivering on our promises to usher in a new American Golden Age where all Americans can thrive.”
Specifically, the One Big Beautiful Bill:
Makes the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent – protecting the average taxpayer from a 22 percent tax hike.
Delivers on President Trump’s priorities of no tax on tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest, and provides additional tax relief for seniors by allowing middle- and low-income seniors to deduct an additional $4,000.
Locks in and boosts the doubled Child Tax Credit for more than 40 million families and provides additional tax relief for American families.
Strengthens Medicaid for children, expectant mothers, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly, while stopping illegal immigrants, deceased beneficiaries, and ineligible recipients from draining Medicaid funds.
Requires colleges to have skin in the game by paying a portion of their students’ unpaid loans based on how much of a return on investment the degree provided.
Requires that to be eligible for SNAP, an individual must be a U.S. Citizen or green card holder, ending taxpayer funded subsidies for mass migration.
Appropriates $46.5 billion for construction of border barriers through September 2029, as well as $5 billion for CBP facilities and checkpoints on the southern, northern and maritime borders and $813 million for border patrol vehicles.
Includes $4.1 billion to hire and train additional CBP and other personnel.
The legislation is endorsed by over 1000 businesses and organizations, including National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), National Taxpayers Union, 60 Plus Association, and Concerned Veterans for America. To read more about the bill, click here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John James (Michigan 10th District)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the United States Senate passed Representative John James’ (MI-10) Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the Biden Administration’s approval of California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule. This CRA passed the House of Representatives in April 2025 and will now move to President Trump’s desk.
James’ legislation would cancel an overreaching and impractical rule that would mandate truck makers to only sell zero-emission trucks which would increase vehicle prices for consumers, increase costs and manufacturing complexities for automakers, and convolute the regulatory environment. If left unchecked, California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule could replicate to other states, forcing costly transitions to electric trucks, inflating goods prices, and disproportionately burdening working families and truckers nationwide.
James issued the following statement following the passage of the CRA in the Senate:
“I’ve always said, Michigan is not afraid of the future, but we demand to be a part of it. This is not the United States of California; California has no right to dictate what Michigan or the rest of the country does. The passage of this bill through the Senate moves us closer towards giving Michigan a seat at the table, marking a historic win for American automakers, autoworkers, small businesses, truckers, and consumers alike. Republicans are working hard to implement President Trump’s America First agenda, and the first step is repealing the rules and waivers that fueled Bideninflation. I look forward to President Trump signing this critical legislation into law.”
Source: US Department of Health and Human Services
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Treasury announce move to strengthen healthcare price transparency Trump administration issues request for information, guidance to expand access to real prices
The departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury took action today to advance President Trump’s directive to ensure Americans have clear, accurate, and actionable information about healthcare prices.
When it comes to the sincerity, or otherwise, of Vladimir Putin’s apparent willingness to talk peace with Ukraine, the Russian leader has given us plenty of hints. He may insist he wants to see a deal done and an end to the killing. But his insistence that any agreement would have to address the “root causes” of the war is a clear indication that he hasn’t rowed back from his original maximalist war aims. To whit: no Nato membership, a Kremlin-friendly government in Kyiv, ownership of Crimea and control – preferably annexation – of the four provinces of Ukraine presently under Russian occupation.
Meanwhile his great ally Dmitry Medvedev continues to insist that there are at present no Ukrainian officials who legitimately qualify as partners for negotiation. The Russian national security council secretary claims that Ukraine is a “failed state” whose leaders’ lack of legitimacy, meanwhile, raise “serious questions” about who Russia can conclude any agreement with.
So when Donald Trump said this week after a two-hour chat with Putin that Russia and Ukraine would “immediately start negotiations” toward a ceasefire, it’s not clear who he thought the Russian president was planning to talk to if, as Putin and his cronies insist, Zelensky and his team are not legitimate. And, from what he had to say about his recent phone call with Putin, it appears that Trump has his eyes more on the sorts of deals that might be done with Russia once this is all cleared up.
As he posted on his Truth Social platform after talking with Putin: “Russia wants to do largescale [sic] TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath’ is over, and I agree. There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED.”
Accordingly, he has backed away from his previous willingness to join Europe in imposing fresh sanctions on Russia. Meanwhile Russia continues to hammer Ukraine both on the battlefield and via ever larger drone and missiles attacks against its civilian population.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
The real clue to Trump’s attitude, writes Stefan Wolff, is the order of phone calls on Monday. Before settling down to talk with Putin, the US president put in a call to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Reporting back on the call, Zelensky said he had urged Trump that he mustn’t make any decisions about Ukraine “without us”. Having subsequently spoken at length with Putin, Trump emerged saying in his Truth Social post that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately start negotiations” towards a ceasefire and an end to the war.
The state of the conflict in Ukraine, May 21 2025. Institute for the Study of War
But Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham who has written regularly here about the conflict, believes that the fact that Trump added the conditions for peace “will be negotiated between the two parties, as it can only be” suggests he is indeed planning to abandon his peacemaking ambitions. The whole deal was taking far longer than the 24 hours he boasted of during the election campaign last year.
Where this leaves Europe is unclear, writes Wolff. If it can no longer rely on Washington as a security partner (and the signs aren’t good), then this will require a substantial rethink. Indeed there are signs, with the UK’s recent agreement over security and defence, that minds are increasingly focused on a more self-reliant future. In turn, this has implications for US security. If Europe is compelled to rethink its security relationship with the US it could cut both ways as Washington pivots to face an increasingly aggressive China.
Of course, it should have been clear to all concerned not to take Putin at face value over his apparent willingness to talk peace with Zelensky when he failed to turn up to talks in Istanbul at the end of last week. As Natasha Lindstaedt writes here, none of the main players attended the talks, despite plans for Putin, Zelensky and Trump to all meet face-to-face.
Lindstaedt, an expert in international relations at the University of Essex, describes what for all the world seemed like a bizarre game of bluff – certainly as far as Putin and Trump are concerned. All three leaders had promised to be there, but in the end they all sent intermediaries with the result that nothing of any consequence was agreed. Trump’s aides insisted that if Putin attended he would be there. Then the US president said the reason that Putin hadn’t turned up was because he knew Trump wasn’t going to be there.
“It’s certainly hard to take peace talks seriously when there is an awkward back-and-forth just about who is going to attend,” Lindstaedt concludes. “And while Trump thinks peace is only possible through bilateral meetings between himself and Putin, it’s clear he can’t even influence Putin to show up to peace talks that the Russian president himself suggested.”
The US president, meanwhile, has announced plans for an ambitious missile defence system to be called “Golden Dome”. It’s a next-generation system, says Trump, “capable even of intercepting missiles launched from the other side of the world, or launched from space”.
The plan, for which US$25 billion (£18.6 billion) has been set aside in the US president’s “one big beautiful bill”, presently before the US Congress, calls for a network of surveillance satellites complemented by a separate fleet of offensive satellites that would shoot down offensive missiles soon after lift-off. Trump has estimated this will cost US$175 billion and will be completed by the end of his current four-year term. But other estimates are that it will be much more expensive and take far longer to complete.
“There has never been anything like this”, the US president said. And indeed there hasn’t, writes Matthew Powell, an expert in air power from the University of Portsmouth. In fact, Powell is deeply sceptical that the technology to enable such an ambitious defence system exists at present. He points to Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which became known by critics, with their tongues in their cheeks, as “Star Wars”, which never really got any further than the drawing board.
It did, however, have the effect of signalling to the Kremlin and the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, that the sky would be the limit in terms of US willingness to push the boundaries of defence spending. Powell believes it significantly changed the calculations when it came to the feasibility of continuing the nuclear arms race and may have been responsible for the end of the cold war.
Incidentally, the US president’s funding bill scraped through the House of Representatives with 215 votes for and 214 against. In addition to setting aside funds for Golden Dome, the bill, which in its current form adds trillions of dollars to the US debt, has been described by Democrat critics as a “tax scam”. A statement from Democrat leaders said: “This fight is just beginning, and House Democrats will continue to use every tool at our disposal to ensure that the GOP Tax Scam is buried deep in the ground, never to rise again.”
But how much stomach do the Democrats have for the fight? They’ve had a pretty terrible few months since the election. Their approval rating in March was at 29%, the worst since polling began in 1992. Fernando Pizarro, a lecturer in journalism at City St Georges, University of London, who has several Emmys under his belt for his work on US politics, has cast his eye over some of the leading Democrats who he thinks will spearhead the opposition to the Republicans over the next few years and identifies a few players who could vie for the presidential nomination in 2028.
Meanwhile, after 11 weeks of Israeli blockade of aid to the people of Gaza, limited deliveries have now recommenced in the face of pressure from both the US and increasingly outspoken interventions from the likes of the UK, France and Canada.
But despite reports that up to 100 trucks are now being allowed into the Gaza Strip, human rights agencies and aid organisations have said that there is a desperate threat of widespread starvation unless the amount of food, fuel and medicine getting through increases exponentially. And fast.
There is talk of a US-administered programme, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which could be up and running by the end of May and could accelerate the delivery of vital supplies to the civilian population while ensuring it does not does not get into the hands of militants or black marketeers.
But this scheme has its critics, write Sarah Schiffling and Liz Breen, experts in humanitarian logistics and health service operations at Hanken School of Economics and the University of Bradford respectively. They point to a number of flaws, including the plan to concentrate the secure distribution points in southern and central Gaza, forcing large numbers of people to travel considerable distances for supplies.
The GHF plan also calls for aid distribution to be coordinated with the Israel Defense Forces, which humanitarian organisations says is a “humanitarian cover for a military strategy of control and dispossession”.
Schiffling and Breen point out that humanitarian organisations have 160,000 pallets of supplies and almost 9,000 aid trucks ready to be dispatched across the border “as soon as Israel allows it”. Whether Israel will allow it is, of course, another question entirely.
The Presidency has issued a statement on Mcebisi Jonas, the Special Envoy to the United States, and his participation during President Cyril Ramaphosa’s working visit to the country this week.
The President’s Office said it acknowledged recent commentary regarding Jonas and said it deemed it prudent to provide clarity.
“Initial interpretations of procedural matters, communicated in good faith, have been amended following confirmation that Mr Jonas holds a valid visa for travel to the United States of America. No formal concerns or substantive inquiries related to his professional responsibilities have been brought to the attention of this office,” said the Presidency.
It added that Jonas contributed to preparatory engagements ahead of the meeting between President Ramaphosa and U.S. President Donald Trump, including consultations abroad.
“His absence from Washington DC, at his own request, has no bearing on the President’s official programme,” said the Presidency. – SAnews.gov.za
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
May 22, 2025
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today announced that he is holding the nomination of Jason Reding Quiñones to be a United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, as well as leaving open the possibility of holds on future U.S. Attorney nominees.
During last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee executive business meeting, Durbin noted that because of then-Senator J.D. Vance holding U.S. Attorney nominations during the Biden Administration, there is now a new precedent for roll call votes on the Floor for confirming U.S. Attorney nominees. For decades, the Senate confirmed U.S. Attorneys by voice vote or unanimous consent after they had been considered in the Judiciary Committee. That precedent changed during the Biden Administration when a Senate Republican refused to allow the Senate to confirm nearly a dozen Justice Department nominees by voice vote—the typical practice. During the first Trump Administration, all 85 of President Trump’s U.S. Attorney nominees moved through the Judiciary Committee and were confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent.
“I appreciate Chairman Grassley’s previous statements that he will continue to honor the blue slip, as I did for my four years as Chair. Blue slips are critical to ensuring that district court judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals have the support of their home state Senators.
“However, because of then-Senator J.D. Vance holding U.S. Attorney nominations during the Biden Administration, there is now a new precedent for roll call votes on the Floor for confirming U.S. Attorney nominees. As I’ve said time and time again—there cannot be one set of rules for Republicans and another set for Democrats.
“Because of the precedent set by then-Senator Vance, I am holding the nomination of Jason Reding Quiñones to be a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to ensure the appropriate Floor time is spent considering his nomination, which I may continue to do for other U.S. Attorney nominees who are reported to the Floor in the future.”
During last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee executive business meeting, Durbin also called on the White House to work in good faith with Senators from both sides of the aisle to find U.S. Attorney candidates who will have home state support. Durbin cautioned that while this has been the case for filling some vacancies, not all Democratic Senators have been afforded the same opportunity to consult with the Trump White House.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Diana DeGette (First District of Colorado)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (CO-01) released the following statement after House Republicans passed a bill that would kick millions of Americans off their health care and impose a massive cut in nutritional assistance, all to pay for their billionaire tax cuts.
“After shady back-room deals, hearings in the dark of night, bullying from the president, and hyper partisanship, House Republicans have forced through Trump’s ‘One, Big Bogus Bill’ that will kick over 13 million Americans off their health care to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. They are kicking hard-working Americans to the side so they can pad the pockets of people like Elon Musk.
“This bill was hastily put together following hidden negotiations, overnight markups, and the last-minute release of bill text so the American people couldn’t learn what is in the bill.
“This bill will take health care away from seniors, children, disabled Americans, and veterans, including 26,760 Denverites. It takes food stamps and nutrition assistance away from millions of families. It defunds Planned Parenthood and takes away basic health care coverage for over 1 million Americans. This monstrosity of a bill is so skewed towards the wealthiest Americans that more than 66% of the benefits would go to the top 20 percent of households by income, and people making less than $51,000 a year will actually see their taxes go up.
“This bill makes life harder for the American people while enriching the top earners in our country. I voted against this terrible legislation, and I will continue to fight against this extreme and cruel agenda.”
OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a preliminary injunction in a multistate lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s unlawful mass firing of U.S. Department of Education employees and the transfer of core statutory functions to other departments. These actions have devastated the Department of Education’s ability to meet its statutory obligations across numerous programs — direct funding for K-12 education, student aid, services for students with disabilities, civil rights enforcement, vocational training, and more.
“As long as the Trump Administration persists in violating the law, we will continue to hold him accountable,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The firing of Department of Education employees and outsourcing of core statutory functions, like the administration of federal student loans, violate the Administrative Procedure Act and are unconstitutional. I am encouraged by the court’s ruling today restoring fired Education Department employees to their positions while our case progresses. We will continue to fight to ensure the unlawful and absurd dismantling of the Department of Education is reversed — permanently. Our students deserve better.”
On March 11, the Department of Education initiated a mass termination impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s employees, as part of the Trump Administration’s “final mission” to dismantle the Department. The mass firings were not accompanied by any reasoning to explain why these employees — and indeed, some whole teams — were targeted. The rationale is nevertheless clear — the Trump Administration believes the Department should not exist and is using these firings as a tool in furtherance of that goal. President Trump’s directive for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to dismantle the Department is further evidence that the firings are part of a broader effort to undermine the Department’s ability to carry out its most vital, congressionally-mandated functions. These steps include transferring the administration of federal student loans to the Small Business Administration, which recently fired 40% of its workers, and of special needs and nutritional programs to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (b)
Authorities Made Arrests as Part of Coordinated Effort to Restore Order and Uphold Immigration Laws.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Attorney Ed Martin Jr. joined with other federal law enforcement leaders to announce today that as a result of a joint federal law enforcement initiative, authorities arrested 189 individuals following a joint federal immigration-related enforcement operation in the District of Columbia over the past week.
As part of the operation, authorities apprehended 189 illegal aliens during an enhanced targeted immigration enforcement operation focusing on egregious criminal alien offenders operating in and around Washington, D.C., May 6–9.
“Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and this administration’s focus on law and order, these arrests represent a major step forward in making Washington, D.C., safer for legal citizens and their families,” said U.S. Attorney Martin. “These arrests make clear that violating our nation’s immigration laws will not be ignored.”
“The District of Columbia is exponentially safer today because of countless hours of investigative work and dedication to duty displayed by ICE Washington, D.C., and our law enforcement partners,” said ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Washington, D.C., Field Office Director Russell Hott. “Working with our partner agencies, ICE officers and agents arrested 189 illegal aliens and removed them from the streets of our Nation’s Capital. Throughout this enhanced enforcement operation, we targeted the most dangerous alien offenders in some of the most crime-infested neighborhoods in the city of Washington, D.C. Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid. I commend the efforts of everyone involved, as all were truly committed to the success of this operation. ICE Washington, D.C., remains dedicated to our mission of prioritizing public safety by arresting and removing criminal offenders from our Nation’s Capital and surrounding communities.”
Among those arrested during the enhanced targeted operation include the following:
• A 47-year-old illegally present Guatemalan alien whose criminal history includes drug possession, illegal reentry, aggravated assault, trespassing, disorderly conduct, and sexual assault. His current criminal charges include unlawful reentry of a previously deported alien, disorderly conduct, lewd acts, possession of a controlled substance, sex abuse, assault with a dangerous weapon, and possessing an open container. Additionally, he has numerous gang-affiliated tattoos on his arms, legs, and chest.
• A 25-year-old illegally present Guatemalan alien whose criminal history includes threat to kidnap, attempted possession of a prohibited weapon, threats to bodily harm, and simple assault. He is currently charged with alien present without admission or parole.
• A 30-year-old illegally present Salvadoran alien whose criminal history includes simple assault, driving while intoxicated, brandishing a machete, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. He is currently charged with alien present without admission or parole.
• A 36-year-old illegally present Mexican alien whose criminal history includes misdemeanor larceny, misdemeanor indecent exposure, possession of an open container, simple assault, theft, unlawful entry, and possession of a prohibited weapon (knife). He is currently charged with alien present without admission or parole.
This law enforcement activity is part of President Donald Trump’s Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Executive Order. The Executive Order directs a coordinated federal effort to reduce crime, enhance public safety, and restore pride in the nation’s capital through targeted enforcement, improved policing, and strategic partnerships. It also calls for the beautification of public spaces, stricter enforcement of quality-of-life laws, and the removal of graffiti and encampments on federal lands to ensure D.C. remains clean, secure, and reflective of America’s strength and heritage.
Participating agencies include U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Virginia Department of Corrections; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington Field Office; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; U.S. Marshals Service; and U.S. State Department Diplomatic Security Service.
Members of the public can report crimes and suspicious activity by dialing 866-DHS-2-ICE (866-347-2423) or completing the online tip form.
All charges are merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)
From day one, the Trump Administration has prioritized enforcing Title IX to protect female students and athletes.
The U.S. Department of Education is partnering with the U.S. Department of Justice to form Title IX Special Investigations Team to ensure rapid and consistent investigations.
Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)
The American people gave the Trump-Vance Administration an historic mandate to restore our education system. We’re 100 days in, and we’re just getting started.
Today, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) led members of the Missouri Delegation—including Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) and U.S. House Members Ann Wagner, Robert Onder, Mark Alford, Jason Smith, Sam Graves, and Eric Burlison—in sending a letter to President Trump in support of Governor Kehoe’s request for a federal disaster declaration following the severe storms and tornadoes in Missouri on April 29, 2025.
The Governor made this request on May 19, which, if approved, would unlock federal funds and assistance to restore public infrastructure.
“This declaration is vital to providing the resources, technical support, and federal assistance necessary for these communities to repair public infrastructure, address recovery needs, and begin rebuilding after this devastating weather event,” the lawmakers wrote.
We respectfully urge your immediate consideration and approval of this request. Missourians are resilient and committed to rebuilding, and federal assistance will be a crucial part of helping them move forward,” the delegation concluded.
Separately, Senator Hawley has been working to unlock federal aid for the more recent tornados in Eastern Missouri and sent a letter today urging approval of a special emergency designation to provide federal reimbursement for first responder activities. Read the full letter here or below.
May 21, 2025
The Honorable Donald J. Trump President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Trump,
We write in strong support of Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe’s request for a major presidential disaster declaration, pursuant to the Stafford Act, for public assistance in six Missouri counties affected by severe storms and tornadoes on April 29, 2025. This declaration is vital to providing the resources, technical support, and federal assistance necessary for these communities to repair public infrastructure, address recovery needs, and begin rebuilding after this devastating weather event.
On May 19, 2025, Governor Kehoe formally requested a major disaster declaration following widespread damage caused by a cluster of severe storms and eight confirmed tornadoes that hit Barry, Greene, Lawrence, McDonald, Newton, and Washington counties. Joint assessments conducted by FEMA, the State Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and local officials estimate more than $16.5 million in emergency response costs and damage to public infrastructure, including damage to a public elementary school, transportation facilities, utility distribution lines, and roads.
A major presidential disaster declaration would allow local governments and qualifying nonprofit agencies to seek federal assistance for reimbursement of emergency response and recovery costs, including the repair and replacement of roads, bridges, schools, and other public infrastructure. Prompt federal support is essential to help these communities recover from the storms’ aftermath and resume essential services for their residents.
We respectfully urge your immediate consideration and approval of this request. Missourians are resilient and committed to rebuilding, and federal assistance will be a crucial part of helping them move forward. Along with our fellow Missourians, we appreciate your immediate attention to this request and stand ready to assist. Sincerely,
During today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) urged President Trump’s Associate Attorney General nominee, Stanley Woodward, to work with State Attorneys General and others to bring about the reinstatement of longstanding safety standards for the abortion drug mifepristone, which accounts for 70 percent of abortions in the United States.
Senator Hawley highlighted how the Biden Administration rolled back safety protocols for the drug, allowing women to administer their own abortions totally unsupervised. A recent study shows that over 10% of women who are prescribed mifepristone experience a serious adverse health event such as infection, hemorrhaging, sepsis, or another life-threatening event that leads them to go to the emergency room. That is a level of risk 22 times higher than what the FDA label currently admits.
[embedded content]
“Any limits on the drug imposed by voters at the state level, consistent with the Dobbs decision, are automatically overridden by what Joe Biden’s FDA decided to do,” Senator Hawley said.
“I hope that the Department of Justice will work with these states and will also vindicate the rights of voters to decide these issues and the rights of states to protect their citizens,” he continued. “I just can’t imagine why the Department would want to defend the abortion regulations of Joe Biden, who was the most rabidly pro-abortion president in American history—very different from our current president, who has been the most pro-life president.”
Senator Hawley has been a leading voice in reinstating mifepristone regulations. Last week, he secured a commitment from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr. that he would review “alarming” new data on the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. RFK Jr. also stated that in light of the new data, the Food and Drug Administration label for mifepristone should change to accurately reflect the adverse effects of the drug. He also sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the Justice Department to reconsider its defense of the Biden Administration’s policy on mifepristone.
Missouri is leading the effort to reimpose safeguards on mifepristone nationwide.
Watch the full hearing here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Julia Letlow (LA-05)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Julia Letlow released the following statement on House passage of a budget reconciliation bill extending the Trump Tax Cuts and adding further tax relief.
“This budget measure supports Louisiana workers, parents, farmers, and seniors through tax relief. We are implementing President Trump’s America First agenda by putting money into the pockets of the middle class. I voted yes because of the lower taxes this bill provides to Louisiana’s working families – specifically a higher standard tax deduction, a more generous child tax credit, and an elimination of taxes on both tips and overtime. The Senate should follow the House and send President Trump’s agenda across the finish line.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Scott DesJarlais (4th District of Tennessee)
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) –Congressman Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-04) released the following statement praising passage of H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
“What a tremendous day for our great Nation! House Republicans passed H.R. 1, One Big Beautiful Bill Act!
This legislation: Gives the largest PERMANENT tax cut in history to the middle class, unleashes American energy production, secures our southern border and strengthens our military.
The good folks of Tennessee’s Fourth Congressional District have given me one mandate: advance President Trump’s agenda. This morning, I am proud to say I have done just that.”
Last night, Rep. DesJarlais oversaw the rule debate on H.R. 1.
The bill now moves on to the Senate for final passage.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ron Estes (R-Kansas)
This morning, Rep. Ron Estes and the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Estes was instrumental in crafting the tax provisions in the legislation that lower taxes for working families and support small businesses. Before the vote, Rep. Estes spoke in support of the bill during debate.
“[The bill] ends benefits for illegal immigrants. Instead of giving Medicaid to able-bodied adults, it prioritizes the benefit for children, seniors and low-income Americans. It provides a tax credit for seniors, exceeding President Trump’s plan to end taxes on Social Security. It provides funding for more border security to keep our country safe,” said Rep. Estes. “And perhaps more importantly, it extends the pro-family, pro-growth policies from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that even the New York Times and Washington Post admitted gave tax cuts to middle class Americans.”
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support our One Big, Beautiful Bill.
First, let me outline what this bill doesn’t do. It doesn’t take away Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security from Americans who need it. And it doesn’t give lavish tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.
Here’s what it does do. It ends benefits for illegal immigrants. Instead of giving Medicaid to able-bodied adults, it prioritizes the benefit for children, seniors and low-income Americans. It provides a tax credit for seniors, exceeding President Trump’s plan to end taxes on Social Security. It provides funding for more border security to keep our country safe.
And perhaps more importantly, it extends the pro-family, pro-growth policies from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that even the New York Times and Washington Post admitted gave tax cuts to middle class Americans.
And how do we know this will work? Because we saw TCJA boost wages, job growth and tax revenue, despite the CBO’s biased and inaccurate scoring in 2017.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of One Big, Beautiful Bill.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Derrick Van Orden (Wisconsin 3rd)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Derrick Van Orden (WI-03) released the following statement after voting to pass the One, Big, Beautiful Bill:
“This bill takes great strides in fulfilling the mandate that was given to President Trump by 77 million Americans. Without this bill, Wisconsinites would have seen a 25% tax hike. As the Democrats spent time fearmongering with lies that this bill will cut benefits, Republicans got the job done by delivering tax savings and benefit protections for the American people.”
The One, Big, Beautiful Bill provides for the American people on a variety of fronts, including:
Restoring integrity in the SNAP program by holding states accountable for their error rates and ensuring benefits are directed to those who need it most
Preventing the largest tax increase in American history, eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, and providing tax relief for seniors, job creators, small businesses, and farmers
Increasing the dairy tier I cap, investing in agriculture research, bolstering trade promotion, and strengthening the farm safety net
Strengthens, secures, and sustains Medicaid for the most vulnerable
