Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons
WILMINGTON, Del. – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) issued the following statement in response to Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear program:
“We do not yet know the full scope of Israel’s military operation against Iran, the justification for striking on the eve of the Trump administration’s latest negotiating session with Tehran, or the likely consequences of these strikes. The Trump administration has made clear that Israel acted unilaterally against the Iranian regime’s nuclear sites and that the United States remains committed to a diplomatic solution.
“Tonight, my first concern is for our nation’s men and women stationed overseas and their families. I am glad the administration began evacuating military families and non-essential personnel from the Middle East earlier this week, and I urge them to do everything they can to protect American servicemembers and civilians alike from Iranian reprisals. I also pray for the safety of Israelis and civilians across the region who are in harm’s way tonight.
“I have long believed that the world cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and that Iran and its proxies pose a serious threat to American interests. I am deeply concerned by the IAEA Board of Governors’ determination earlier today that Iran has failed to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran’s defiant subsequent declaration of a new underground enrichment facility. Even so, tonight’s actions have the potential to lead to dangerous escalation and a full-scale regional war. I am following developments closely tonight and am urging restraint.
“Everyone’s goal must now be the prevention of a full-blown regional war. The Trump administration and our regional partners must work together to reduce the risks of escalation and work towards a path forward that provides safety and stability for the entire region.”
Senator Coons is ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
June 13, 2025
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently limited a nationwide injunction to only Texas, giving the Administration the greenlight to resume processing initial DACA applications for all other states
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and lead author of the Dream Act, led 40 Senate Democrats in urging U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to resume processing applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, following a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that limited a nationwide injunction to Texas.
The Senators began by highlighting the popular support for providing Dreamers a pathway to citizenship, writing: “Noncitizens brought to the United States as children, often known as Dreamers, are American in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute every day to this great nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Americans overwhelmingly support providing Dreamers a path to citizenship, and in December 2024, President Trump stated that he supported protections for Dreamers to remain in the United States.”
The Senators continued by making their request, writing: “Consistent with this statement, we implore you to use your authority at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to resume processing initial applications for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and provide such protections for Dreamers immediately.”
Sunday, June 15 marks the thirteenth anniversary of President Obama establishing the DACA program via policy memorandum in 2012. Since then, more than 825,000 people have received deferred action pursuant to DACA, empowering recipients to bolster their careers and contribute an estimated $140 billion to the U.S. economy in spending power and $40 billion in combined federal, payroll, state, and local taxes.
In 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen halted the DACA program and enjoined USCIS from approving any new DACA applications nationwide. While the program was enjoined, USCIS has continued to accept and hold initial applications, and in 2022, the Department of Homeland Security published the DACA Final Rule, codifying the 2012 memorandum establishing DACA into regulation. More than 100,000 initial DACA applications are pending with USCIS.
On January 17, 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision limiting Judge Hanen’s injunction to Texas.
The Senators further elaborated on the Fifth Circuit’s decision to limit the injunction, writing: “Pursuant to the order, in Texas, DACA must resume as a limited program providing protection from deportation for current DACA recipients, but without access to work authorization or driver’s licenses as part of those renewals. This order went into effect on March 11, giving USCIS the authority to start processing initial DACA applications from states other than Texas. However, nearly three months later, USCIS has not made any public announcement on whether new DACA applications will be processed; nor has the agency begun processing initial applications that have been pending with the agency for years.”
The Senators concluded by reiterating their request, writing: “We urge you to begin processing these DACA applications immediately, consistent with the Fifth Circuit decision and existing regulations, and to ensure Dreamers eligible to file initial DACA applications can do so as soon as possible.”
In addition to Durbin, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
For a PDF of the letter to USCIS, clickhere.
Twenty-four years ago, Durbin first introduced the Dream Act—bipartisan legislation that would give undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country a chance to become American citizens.
The Dream Act was also included in the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill that Durbin coauthored as part of the “Gang of Eight”—made up of four Democrats and four Republicans. The 2013 bill passed the Senate on a strong bipartisan vote of 68-32, but the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives refused to consider it. Over the years, Senate Republicans have filibustered the Dream Act at least five times.
Source: United States Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-New Mexico)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Food and Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Organics, and Research, issued the following statement on Senate Republicans’ updated proposal to cut $211 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
“Senate Republicans have unveiled yet another extreme proposal to gut SNAP – taking food off the plates of our friends, neighbors, and family members who are struggling to make ends meet and diverting those dollars directly to fund the next Tax Scam. These would be the deepest cuts in SNAP’s history, coming at a moment when families are already being squeezed by rising costs under the Trump administration. Not only will this proposal make it harder for families to put food on the table, it also creates a massive unfunded mandate that will blow a hole in state budgets.
“SNAP was established as a fundamental promise: no American should go hungry. By walking back that promise and turning their backs on a bipartisan Farm Bill process, Senate Republicans are making it harder for children, veterans, seniors, and folks with disabilities to eat, straining emergency food networks, and undermining the rural economies, farmers, and small businesses that rely on SNAP dollars.”
Last week, Senators Luján and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, convened a Senate Spotlight Forum titled “Hunger by Design: The GOP’s Assault on SNAP,” bringing together national experts and advocates to highlight the dangerous consequences of Congressional Republicans’ proposal to slash SNAP.
SEATTLE — Attorney General Nick Brown today filed an amicus brief with attorneys general from 18 states including Nevada in support of Job Corps, a national program that offers career training and housing to young Americans from low-income backgrounds. Job Corps has nearly 100 residential campuses across the country, and the Trump Administration’s illegally terminated the program threatens to leave thousands of vulnerable young Americans homeless.
The brief explains that “in the sixty years since Congress created Job Corps, millions of young Americans from low-income backgrounds have been served by the program’s unique combination of education, training, housing, healthcare and community.” The unlawful termination will impact tens of thousands of young Americans who are currently enrolled and housed at campuses in all fifty states, including the Cascades Job Corps Center in Sedro-Woolley, Washington and the Tongue Point Job Corps Center in Astoria, Oregon. Thousands of these program participants were unhoused or in foster care when they enrolled and have no alternative housing if they lose their residence through the program.
The brief was filed in National Job Corps Association et al. v. Department of Labor et al. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday, with Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford leading a coalition including Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Vermont.
Friday’s amicus filing reaffirms that the injunction is necessary to protect vulnerable state residents and promote state goals in education and workforce development. It further reinforces the point that the Trump Administration cannot violate federal law and the Constitution by terminating congressionally mandated programs it opposes.
A copy of the Amicus Brief is available here.
-30-
Washington’s Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state’s largest law firm, the Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington’s 39 counties.
Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.
Media Contact:
Email: press@atg.wa.gov
Phone: (360) 753-2727
General contacts: Click here
Media Resource Guide & Attorney General’s Office FAQ
What you need to know: Following new reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has shared Medicaid beneficiary information with the Department of Homeland Security, Governor Newsom slammed the Trump administration for their dangerous abuse of personally identifiable information.
Sacramento, California – Governor Gavin Newsom today slammed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for reportedly providing Medicaid beneficiary information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the Associated Press, “President Donald Trump’s administration this week provided deportation officials with personal data — including the immigration status — on millions of Medicaid enrollees, a move that could make it easier to locate people as part of his sweeping immigration crackdown.”
“We deeply value the privacy of all Californians. This action by the federal government has implications for every person on Medicaid, but it is especially alarming for our immigrants and American mixed-status families who are already under relentless, indiscriminate attack by this administration. The federal government continues to instill fear across this nation and shroud its continued violation of Americans’ privacy rights in propaganda.
“Sharing Medicaid beneficiary information with the Department of Homeland Security – which is itself legally dubious – will jeopardize the safety, health, and security of those who will undoubtedly be targeted by this abuse, and Americans more broadly. Federal law requires emergency care to be provided to all to save lives, and the federal government helps pay for it for low-income individuals, regardless of immigration status. Every state should be concerned about this data sharing and its implications for the safety and health of its communities. We will continue to vigorously defend Californians’ privacy rights and explore all avenues to protect their information and safety.”
Governor Gavin Newsom
The federal government funds some aspects of Medi-Cal, including emergency services, and the state is required to share certain information with the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), a federal agency within HHS. Last month, California’s Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) responded to a federal data request to demonstrate that federal Medicaid funds were claimed only as permitted and allowable by federal rules. DHCS did not provide any demographic data to CMS that CMS does not already receive on a regular basis, as is federally required.
Medicaid Beneficiary Information
CMS serves as the focal point for federal health insurance programs such as Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California). These critical health coverage programs serve millions of families, children, pregnant women, adults without children, and also seniors and people living with disabilities. California is required to share certain information with CMS under the expectation that the federal government uses that information for administering the Medicaid program, within the confines of federal law and policy.
CMS regularly receives data for every person enrolled in Medi-Cal, including immigrants with lawful status who are eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal, and undocumented immigrants who, under federal law, are eligible for Medicaid emergency services. Emergency Medi-Cal provides coverage for medical emergencies, including childbirth, for all eligible low-income residents of California, including undocumented immigrants. Every state has an emergency Medicaid program. Emergency Medi-Cal eliminates the financial obstacles that can prevent individuals from seeking emergency care and helps keep open hospital emergency departments, who must meet a federal requirement to provide emergency services regardless of an individual’s ability to pay.
California’s privacy protections
California is committed to protecting the privacy rights of all Californians consistent with Article 1 of the California Constitution, the Information Practices Act of 1977, and other state and federal laws. The state limits the collection of personal information and safeguards the privacy of everyone’s personal information collected or maintained by our departments. Additionally, each department utilizes industry-standard best practices to store and manage all data in its possession.
The state only uses Medi-Cal application information to determine eligibility. Authorized access, use, and disclosure of sensitive data are governed by federal and state laws designed to protect confidentiality and program integrity.
Recent news
Jun 12, 2025
News “A win for all Americans” What you need to know: Standing up for American citizens and the nation’s foundational ban on martial law in peacetime, Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta today secured an emergency restraining order blocking President Trump’s…
Jun 12, 2025
News What you need to know: Former secretaries of the Army and Navy and retired four-star admirals and generals filed an amicus brief in support of the Governor’s motion to block the Trump administration’s illegal militarization of downtown Los Angeles. SACRAMENTO –…
Jun 12, 2025
News What you need to know: Governor Newsom signed an executive order further advancing California’s clean vehicle transition by kickstarting development of next-generation policy to spur innovation, updating state vehicle purchasing requirements, and directing the…
Iran’s immediate response – the firing of about 100 drones into Israel, many of which were shot down – appears an opening gambit; meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said his country’s airstrikes would continue “for as many days as it takes.”
The Conversation turned to Javed Ali, an expert on Middle East affairs at the University of Michigan and a former senior official at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, to talk through why Israel chose now to strike and what the implications are for U.S. policy on Iran.
Why did Israel strike now?
There was a combination of factors that led up to this moment.
One of the more immediate reasons was that an International Atomic Energy Agency report found that Iran was making progress toward enriching uranium to a degree that, in theory at least, would allow Tehran to very quickly upgrade to a weapons-grade level. That is the thrust of what Netanyahu has said by way of reason for the attack now – that intelligence shows that Iran was getting closer to a possible breakout status for a nuclear weapon.
But there is a confluence of other factors that have built up over the last year and a half, ever since the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas in Israel.
Iran’s proxy Axis of Resistance – that is, regional groups aligned with Iran and supported militarily by Tehran, including Hamas and Hezbollah – doesn’t present the same level of threat to Israel as it did in the pre-Oct. 7 landscape.
In the past, an Israeli attack of the sort we are seeing now would have invited a multidirectional response from all corners of the resistance – and we saw this in the early days after the Oct. 7 attack.
As of now, none of Iran’s resistance partners have done anything in response to the latest strike – and that is, in large part, due to the fact that Israel has successfully degraded these group’s capabilities through a series of campaigns and operations. The United States has also contributed to this effort to a degree with sustained operations against the Houthis in Yemen from March to May this year, including hundreds of airstrikes.
Further, Israel’s previous attacks on Iran in April and October 2024 managed to degrade Iran’s ballistic and surface-to-air missiles and air defense radar systems. This likely played into Israel’s calculations, too.
Lastly, Israel knows that it has a strong supporter in the White House with President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress. Washington may not be 100% aligned with Tel Aviv on every issue, but at the moment there is no criticism from the the White House or Republican members of Congress on Israel’s attacks.
There may have been some dialogue between Netanyahu and the Trump administration over the timing of the Israeli strike preceding yesterday’s attacks, during which Israel would have made the case that the time is right now to launch a very different type of campaign to really set back Iran’s nuclear program. In recorded remarks about Israel’s operations, Netanyahu stated he directed his national security team to begin planning for a large-scale campaign against Iran’s nuclear program last November.
Perhaps the White House did push back, saying that it wanted to see if any progress could be made in the talks. Certainly, it has been reported that Trump told Netanyahu in a phone call on June 10 that he believed a deal with Tehran could be negotiated.
Regardless, Netanyahu still went ahead with the strike.
Indeed some observers have posited that collapsing the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran may have been one of the intentions of Netanyahu, who has long opposed any deal with Tehran and has reportedly been irked by Trump’s reversal on the issue. During his first administration, Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of a previous nuclear deal.
A newspaper shows the portraits of Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, who were due to meet in Oman. Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images
What should we make of the US response to the strike?
The White House hasn’t criticized Israel in its response to the strike, merely stating that it wasn’t involved.
In my assessment, the White House appears to be sincere in the substance of what it is saying: that there was no overt and direct U.S. involvement with Israel during the actual strike. As for U.S. involvement in any planning or intelligence sharing ahead of the strike, we may never know.
But this is largely messaging for Iran: “We didn’t attack you. Israel attacked you.”
The U.S. is clearly worried that any response in Tehran may involve U.S. assets in the region. In the past, parts of Iran’s proxy network have hit American bases in Jordan and Iraq. Backing up this being a real concern in Washington is the fact that in advance of Israel’s strike, it already made moves to protect some of its assets in the region and remove personnel.
Has Iran said whether US targets will be included in its response?
On June 11, Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasrizadeh warned that if Israel were to attack, Tehran would respond against U.S. personnel and bases in the region – but that hasn’t happened yet.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and military officials must know that attacking U.S. targets would be very risky and would lead to a significant response that would likely be even more damaging than Israel’s latest attacks – including putting a potential deal over its nuclear program at risk. And the U.S. has the capability to hit Iran even harder than Israel, both militarily and through the extension of sanctions that have already been very punishing to the Iranian economy.
Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, points to a red line he drew on a graphic of a bomb while addressing the United Nations on Sept. 27, 2012. Mario Tama/Getty Images
Ultimately, it will be Khamenei who decides Iran’s response – and he remains firmly in control of Iran’s national security apparatus despite his advanced age. He knows he will have to walk a fine line to avoid drawing the U.S. into a military campaign.
So how might Iran respond in coming weeks?
Despite the challenges facing Iran at the moment, Iran will, I believe, have to respond in a way that goes beyond its previous attacks on Israel.
Reports of drone attacks against Israel on June 13 fit within the framework of the attack Iran launched against Israel in April 2024 that included a combined salvo of almost 300 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones over several hours. Despite the damage Israel has inflicted against Iran through its series of operations, Iran probably still possesses thousands or tens of thousands of these types of weapons that it can use against various targets in the region.
Iran could look at targets outside Israel, without necessarily hitting the U.S. directly – for example, by attacking maritime targets in the Persian Gulf and in effect closing the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. military planners have long been concerned about Iranian naval attacks using small boats for ramming or small arms attacks against shipping in the Persian Gulf.
Another option would be for Iran to increase its involvement in terrorism activities in the region. Tehran’s proxy groups may be diminished, but Iran still has its Quds Force, through which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conducts nonstate and unconventional warfare. Will the Quds Force look toward targeted assassinations, bombings, or kidnappings as part of Iran’s retaliatory options? It has employed such tactics in the past.
And beyond conventional weapons, Iran also has pretty significant cyber capabilities that it has used against Israel, the United States and Saudi Arabia, among others.
Where does this leave US-Iran talks?
It would appear Trump is still holding open the possibility of some kind of deal with Iran. In his statement following the Israel attack, he warned Tehran that if it didn’t come back to the table and cut a deal, the next Israeli attack would be “even more brutal.”
The attack could push Iran into reengaging in talks that were seemingly stalling in recent weeks. Certainly that seems to be the thrust of Trump’s messaging.
But the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists in the attack, and the apparent wounding of one of the negotiators, may convince Tehran to double down on a path toward a nuclear weapon as the only means of a deterrence against Israel, especially if it suspects U.S. involvement.
Javed Ali does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Democratic leaders and a lone Republican senator, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, quickly decried the treatment of U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California and called for an investigation after he was removed from a press conference with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on June 12, 2025, in Los Angeles, handcuffed and forced to the ground.
“Sir! Sir! Hands off!” Padilla, 52, shouted as several federal agents surrounded and moved him out of the room where Noem was speaking about the Los Angeles protests against immigration enforcement. “I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have a question for the secretary.”
Padilla, who unexpectedly appeared at the press conference and interrupted Noem as she was speaking during her prepared remarks, was released soon after and met with Noem. Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, shared a video of the incident with Padilla on X, and wrote, “Incredibly aggressive behavior from a sitting US Senator. No one knew who he was.”
Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation, spoke with Boise State University political scientist Charlie Hunt, an expert on Congress, to understand how political polarization and a shift in American political decorum may have contributed to the shocking moment of an American senator being forcibly removed from a press conference.
What is striking to you about what happened to Sen. Padilla?
What stood out to me was the aggressiveness with which Noem’s security officers detained Sen. Padilla and took him out of the room. We do not ever see something like this happen to members of Congress and particularly members of the Senate. Sen. Padilla represents 39 million people – he is not some back-bencher member of the House of Representatives. I think it’s safe to say that no other modern presidential administration has come close to treating an individual member of Congress in this way.
This is also a real turn in terms of the completely autocratic way in which Department of Homeland Security staff responded to the incident. They claimed in a social media post that Padilla didn’t identify himself at the briefing, even though, “I’m Senator Alex Padilla” were the first words out of his mouth in the video that they themselves shared.
What safeguards, if any, do members of Congress have that might protect their ability to speak freely, and publicly oppose the executive branch?
Members of Congress enjoy the same basic free speech rights that all Americans do, but they do also have an additional set of protections that are relevant to this incident.
Members of Congress have significant oversight power, which involves doing due diligence on what actions the executive branch is taking and making sure they’re complying with laws that Congress has passed.
As a Senate member from California, it’s perfectly legitimate for Padilla to want clarity on immigration enforcement actions that are taking place in Los Angeles. Padilla even clarified after the incident that he was at the press conference to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security that he and other Senate members have been seeking for weeks about deportations.
This is completely in line with Congress’ oversight power. Senators often question officials in committee hearings like we typically see, but they also conduct fact-finding missions to learn how executive actions are affecting their constituents.
Congress members also have protections stemming from the Constitution’s speech and debate clause. Essentially, they cannot be arrested or indicted for things they say in their official capacity, which – because of Congress’ oversight responsibility – Padilla was clearly within the bounds of here.
Yes, of course, Padilla was also trying to draw attention to himself and the issues he’s focused on. But it’s not against the law to be a little bit disruptive or to engage in political theater, especially thanks to these additional protections members of Congress typically enjoy.
What other factors led to this moment?
Something I’ve written about previously is a phenomenon called negative partisanship. This means that voters and Congress members alike are driven not so much by loyalty to their own party but instead a sort of seething hatred for the other political party. What gets the most clicks and views, and what drives voters more and more, is the idea that “we don’t just want to see voting along the party line – we want to see our team beating the other side into submission.” This incident with Sen. Padilla was a very literal embodiment of this principle.
We have seen violence during Trump’s campaigns, where hecklers would be roughed up by participants at rallies, at Trump’s encouragement. Certainly, we saw it at the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s subsequent pardons of those rioters.
Does Padilla’s removal have anything to do with Donald Trump specifically?
We can’t ignore the singular role Trump has played here. This is a uniquely authoritarian presidency, even much more so than the first Trump administration. By authoritarian, I mean a leader who tries to rule on his own and suppress all dissent. Trump didn’t create partisanship, political violence or negative partisanship. But there’s no getting around the fact that his past behavior and openness to violence have lowered the bar for decorum in American politics.
For example, if you have convinced your supporters that the people on the other side of the political aisle are “sick” or “nasty,” that they are going to ruin the country, then those supporters will become more willing to accept some of the actions Trump has taken, such as calling in the Marines on protesters in Los Angeles, or pardoning the Capitol attackers – even if they wouldn’t have been willing to accept that kind of response 20 years ago.
All of these things combined – negative partisanship, plus having a leader on one side that is willing to lower the decorum bar beyond where we thought was possible – is a recipe for things unfolding like we saw with Padilla.
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat from California, speaks to news reporters outside the Wilshire Federal Building after he was forcibly removed from a press conference on June 12, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images
What will you be watching for as this situation plays out?
My concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. We expect competition between the branches, for “ambition to counteract ambition,” as James Madison put it, to ensure one branch doesn’t get too powerful. This incident was a huge step in the wrong direction.
As a result, authoritarian presidents and administrations see an opening to treat them this way without consequences. What Congress does in the next several days about this episode will speak volumes – or not – about whether it intends to ever reassert itself as an equal branch of government.
Democrats held the floor in the Senate all afternoon to demand answers about Padilla’s treatment. It will be revealing how Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others respond. Lisa Murkowski has said she’s pretty appalled by what happened. Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham seemed to imply that Padilla deserved what he got. Which route will Republicans, who control Congress, take?
Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
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 Israel launched military strikes on Iran overnight.
“I stand with Israel. A world with fewer nuclear weapons is a safer one for everyone. The autocratic and theocratic Iranian regime could launch nuclear weapons not only at Israel, but also U.S. military bases and other U.S. interests.
“I worry about the safety of innocent civilians in Israel, Iran and elsewhere in the region. I urge that innocent civilians not be targeted. I also worry about U.S. personnel stationed in the Middle East. Iran must not target U.S. personnel.
“What makes this situation even more volatile is that the United States, a longstanding ally of Israel, does not have a President respected or trusted on the world stage. This makes our country and the world less safe. This escalation happened because Donald Trump is a weak president who is focused on the wrong priorities in the region. While Iran ratcheted up its nuclear program, Trump was focused on getting an illegal gift from Qatar of a used 747 ‘palace in the sky.’ He also chose to go to Saudi Arabia earlier this year to make corrupt deals that benefit his family. He has not visited Israel since becoming President.
“By Trump’s design, our government lacks leaders who can manage a crisis. We live in a dangerous world and entrusting the world’s most powerful military to former TV host Pete Hegseth is extraordinarily irresponsible. Secretary of State Rubio’s weak and feckless statement yesterday was troubling too and reflects an indifference towards ensuring the U.S. is the global leader it once was. These are the moments where a competent cabinet matters.
“The Iranian regime must not gain nuclear weapons and we must secure a diplomatic solution that avoids an all-out war in the Middle East. I am praying for the safety of the civilians who are in harm’s way and for our service members stationed across the region.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04)
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Hull) issued the following statement praising the Trump administration for expanding Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) and supporting homegrown Iowa biofuels:
“I thank President Trump and Secretary Zeldin for standing with Iowa farmers and biofuels producers by expanding renewable volume obligations for ethanol and biodiesel. This decision will drive investment in our rural communities, support our farmers, create jobs, and strengthen American energy independence with homegrown liquid fuels. President Trump is a strong friend of Iowa farmers and energy producers, and this investment underscores his commitment to strengthening and growing Rural America.”
Last month, Feenstra helped lead a letter urging expanded RVO levels for Iowa farmers and biofuels producers.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jimmy Gomez (CA-34)
GOMEZ: “If it can happen to Alex, it can happen to any of those senators on the other side, or any member of Congress, or anybody.”
You can watch the press conference HERE.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Representatives Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), and members of the California congressional delegation held an emergency press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to condemn the Trump administration’s forcible removal of U.S. Senator Alex Padilla during a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) press conference.
Senator Padilla was thrown to the ground and handcuffed while attempting to ask Secretary Kristi Noem questions regarding DHS’s military-style deployments in LA and ongoing reports of human rights abuses at detention facilities. The senator identified himself repeatedly, yet was removed from a federal building where his own office is located.
You can read Rep. Gomez’s full remarks as delivered below:
“I think everyone is definitely shaken up—but extremely angry about what just occurred. Because we’ve seen this situation before. This administration — Donald Trump — is outside the bounds of the law, outside the bounds of the courts, outside the bounds of custom and practice. And he will not stop in just Los Angeles.
“He’s not gonna stop in California. He’s gonna go to every state in the union to show that he is not controlled by the Constitution. And if people think it’s only in California, they are mistaken.
“What we’ve seen is that this administration—with their ICE raids—is not going after criminals. I don’t know any MS-13 gang members that work at a car wash during the day, or at a day laborer site, or at a restaurant during the day. That’s who he said he would go after. But who is he going after?
“He’s going after a mom doing her yearly check-in—with her kids—and then deporting them to Texas and separating them. A little girl who’s getting cancer treatment—and the only place she can get it is here.
“People should be pissed off. Not just because of them—but because of what it means about our country, where we’re heading. And we’re heading down a dark, dark path. Something that, in my imagination, I never thought we’d reach. But this is where we are.
“And if they can do that to a member of Congress from New Jersey [and California’s] senior senator, who was shouting at the top of his lungs, ‘I am Senator Alex Padilla,’ and whose office is in that federal building—he had a right to be there—then they’re gonna make something up to justify, probably, an indictment of that senator.
“And what we want to know—what we’re going to demand—is that Kristi Noem come before Congress and testify about what occurred today.
“Because if it can happen to Alex, it can happen to any of those senators on the other side. It can happen to any member of Congress. It can happen to anybody.
“So I want to just stress: we’re not going to give up. We’re not going to be intimidated. We’re not going to be cowed. We’re going to keep fighting for our communities. And I know the Trump administration says using the word ‘fight’ is some kind of declaration. And it is a declaration.
“It’s a declaration that we’re not going to give up. That we’re going to stand up for one another. Because too much is at stake. And I want everybody to know—we’re calling on all Americans to stand up. Because when is it going to be enough?
“When somebody gets shot in the streets of Los Angeles? When a member gets shot?”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE)
Washington, DC — Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE) released the following statement today after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its proposed Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volume requirements for 2026 and 2027.
“Today’s announcement rightfully recognizes the key role biofuels play in American energy security,” Smith said. “If finalized, these volumes will support our agriculture producers, provide much needed certainty to the industry, and ensure consumers have greater access to affordable liquid fuels. I thank Administrator Zeldin and President Trump for their continued support of American biofuels and look forward to working with them to ensure today’s RVOs have the intended effect of promoting American energy production.”
BACKGROUND:
Congressman Smith first introduced a bill to approve year-round sale of E15 in 2015.
On May 16, Smith, Reps. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), and Angie Craig (D-MN) joined 25 colleagues in a letter to the President urging for robust blending requirements in the ongoing RFS rulemaking.
On April 22, Smith, Craig, Hinson, and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) led 25 members of Congress in a letter urging the administration to lower prices at the pump by providing a summertime E-15 waiver.
On March 11, Smith led a bipartisan press conference highlighting grassroots support for eliminating restrictions on E15 sales.
On February 13, Smith and Craig introduced the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act to enable the year-round, nationwide sale of E15. Read more about the bipartisan, bicameral legislation here.
On February 6, 2025, Smith and Craig led nearly 30 colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. The letter emphasized the important role of the American biofuels industry in maximizing energy abundance and affordability while encouraging the EPA to issue timely and science-driven guidance to fulfill the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS).
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Levin (CA-49)
June 13, 2025
Washington, D.C.—Today, Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49) released the following statement on Israel’s strikes in Iran:
“I am closely monitoring the unfolding events in the Middle East after Israel launched preemptive, unilateral strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets.
“The Iranian regime, which sponsors terrorism and represses its own people, must never obtain a nuclear weapon. In recent days, international nuclear regulators declared Iran in violation of its nonproliferation obligations after finding the country dangerously close to making several nuclear weapons.
“Iran’s decades-long pursuit of a nuclear weapon poses a grave threat to the United States and our allies. No nation can be expected to stand by while another openly threatens its existence and races to gain the capabilities to carry it out. The Iranian regime must renounce its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program once and for all.
“I urge the Trump Administration to take every step to protect U.S. personnel and diplomatic facilities in the region, and to make clear that any attack on American interests will not be tolerated. I support Israel’s right to defend itself from imminent threats and believe the United States should provide appropriate diplomatic and material support to help prevent further escalation.
“I will continue supporting measures that prevent military miscalculation, save lives, and chart a path forward that brings us closer to ending Iran’s nuclear threat in order to create a more secure and peaceful world.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05)
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05) issued the following statement in response to Israel’s strike against Iran.
“I strongly support Israel’s right to defend itself in the face of escalating threats from Iran, which is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.
“President Trump and Secretary Rubio have made clear that the United States was not involved in the planning or execution of these attacks. However, our commitment to Israel’s security remains firm.
“I’ve consistently supported efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran, and I stand with President Trump in his efforts to restore stability in the region.”
OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on a decision by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting a preliminary injunction blocking unlawful provisions in President Donald Trump’s unprecedented elections executive order. Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 19 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the order in April 2025.
“Today, the court blocked the President’s unconstitutional attempt to interfere with states’ fundamental responsibilities to manage and administer our elections,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote. We will continue to fight to ensure the President’s anti-Democratic, anti-American attacks on voting are never implemented.”
Source: United States Senator Pete Ricketts (Nebraska)
June 13, 2025
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE), issued the following statement after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Renewable Fuels Standard rulemaking noticing Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for 2026 and 2027:
“President Trump and Administrator Zeldin have held true to their promises to unleash American energy and to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard consistent with the law. Today’s Renewable Volume Obligation rulemaking marks an important day for biofuels, American farmers, and Nebraska agriculture. Strong targets drive strong biofuel markets which benefits energy consumers, agricultural producers, and the environment.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Florida 20th district))
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) released the following statement regarding the detainment of Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA).
“The violent and forceful detainment of Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) by federal agents is a national disgrace and a dangerous escalation in the ongoing assault on our democratic norms.
“A sitting United States Senator was forcibly removed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed—for doing what every public servant has a duty to do: ask questions and hold this administration accountable.
“What happened in Los Angeles is not just an affront to Senator Padilla (D-CA)—it is an affront to every American who believes in the right to speak, question authority, and seek truth. That he was treated as a threat for simply asserting his identity and demanding to be heard speaks volumes about the dangerous political climate under Trump’s renewed immigration crackdown.
“I stand in full solidarity with Senator Padilla (D-CA) and echo his call for peaceful protest and resistance. We must reject these authoritarian tactics and reaffirm our commitment to justice, due process, and the constitutional rights of all people—documented or not.”
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (7th District of Washington)
Washington, DC – Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), Lou Correa (D-CA), and Jack Bergman (R-MI) introduced bipartisan legislation repealing the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) joined as an Original Cosponsor, as well.
The Caesar Act which imposed sanctions on Syria in response to the Assad regime’s war crimes was waived by Secretary of State Marco Rubio last month for 180 days. However, unless Congress permanently repeals the law it will require waivers every 180 days until the law expires in December 2029, thereby creating economic uncertainty which will harm efforts to reduce the massive humanitarian and economic hardship in Syria which has been ravaged by years of war.
On May 21, Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In response to a question regarding Syria sanctions from Rep. Wilson, Sec. Rubio said, “The sanctions in Syria are largely based on a statute, the Caesar Act, and so that allows the President to do rolling waivers, I believe 6 months at a time. So the goal is ultimately to make enough progress, so that Congress will permanently repeal those.”
Ambassador Thomas Barrack, who is U.S. ambassador to Türkiye, was named as Syria’s U.S. envoy on May 23; he noted Syria had been under U.S. sanctions since 1979. Some of the toughest were implemented in 2020 under the Caesar Act, which Barrack said must be repealed by Congress within a 180-day window. “I promise you the one person who has less patience with these sanctions than all of you is President Trump,” Amb. Barrack said.
“For far too long, the Syrian people suffered under the brutal dictatorship of the Assad regime. With the ousting of this regime, it is critical that we give the new government the opportunity to deliver for the Syrian people,” said Rep. Jayapal. “The repeal of these broad sanctions will give foreign partners the certainty they need to invest in the Syrian economy and give their new government a chance to succeed.”
“The Assad regime sanctioned by the Caesar Act no longer exists, and it is time to repeal the law to provide long-term certainty to those who would like to invest in the reconstruction and rebuilding of Syria,” said Rep. Wilson.
“With the fall of the Assad regime, the Syrian people have renewed hope for a better future,” said Rep. Panetta. “By repealing the Caesar Act, the United States can better support the Syrian people and their economy during this critical transitional period. Syria is at a turning point, and as geo-political adversaries try to take advantage of the turmoil, the United States must position itself as a partner for continued progress.”
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, issued the following statement on the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the historic Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement (RCBA) reached between the Federal Government and the Six Sovereigns—the states of Washington and Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation:
“Donald Trump doesn’t know the first thing about the Northwest and our way of life—so of course, he is abruptly and unilaterally upending a historic agreement that finally put us on a path to salmon recovery, while preserving stable dam operations for growers and producers, public utilities, river users, ports and others throughout the Northwest. This decision is grievously wrong and couldn’t be more shortsighted.
“The Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement was the result of years of painstaking work—this was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to modernize infrastructure across the Columbia River Basin, support reliable clean energy, and save imperiled salmon and steelhead runs. The Trump administration’s senseless decision to tear it up is a betrayal of our Tribes and a tremendous setback for the entire Northwest.
“After nearly 30 years of litigation, this agreement also led to a durable stay in court proceedings, which is now in jeopardy. I am going to continue doing everything I can to support the restoration of healthy and abundant salmon runs—including through the annual Appropriations process. We must save our salmon.”
In August 2022, Senator Murray and Governor Inslee released joint findings and recommendations at the conclusion of an extensive, months-long joint federal-state process that evaluated the feasibility of breaching the Lower Snake River Dams as a way of protecting endangered salmon and steelhead species. Murray and Inslee concluded that breach was not feasible at that time as more needs to be done to replace the benefits of the dams–particularly investments in clean energy—but that it is imperative to prioritize major salmon recovery projects that can be undertaken in the near term. Senator Murray’s statement on the findings of the Murray-Inslee joint federal-state process is HERE.
A final version of the independent report commissioned by Senator Murray and Governor Inslee can be found HERE. The independent report—along with months of public input, and discussion with stakeholders and Tribes—helped guide the Senator and Governor’s August 2022 recommendation.
In December 2023, Senator Murray applauded the agreement reached between the federal government and the Six Sovereigns to allow for an extended stay in court proceedings on litigation involving the management of the Columbia-Snake River System.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-01)
— Remarks as Delivered —
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
“Iowans overwhelmingly rejected the Washington status quo in November, demanding an end to unelected bureaucrats misusing taxpayer resources.
“President Trump’s rescissions package cuts $9.4 billion dollars, including: $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, $6 million for “Net Zero Cities” in Mexico, and $1 million for voter ID in Haiti, not here in the United States.
“We are only scratching the surface with this package, but imagine redirecting that to veterans’ care or specialty crop programs in a state like mine.
“This package also rescinds funds for NPR and PBS.
“For decades, public broadcasting has not adhered to objectivity standards enshrined in law – it has pushed biased narratives and forced inappropriate content on children, like a movie celebrating the sex change of a child, and a feature on the racial origins of fat phobia…whatever that means.
“Children should not be fed woke propaganda – certainly not on the taxpayer dime – that is coming from a former broadcaster.
“I want to thank President Trump for exposing this waste and working to protect Americans’ hard-earned dollars.
“I urge my colleagues to join me in passing his bill, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.” – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson
Washington, D.C. – Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden announced that they have cosponsored the Fit to Serve Act, a bill to support our military readiness and national security by prohibiting discrimination against transgender service members. The lawmakers’ bill comes as the Trump Administration is taking actions that undermine our national security and dehumanize the thousands of transgender service members who have made meaningful contributions to our armed forces.
“Service members sign up to protect our country with patriotism and bravery,” said Merkley. “Banning highly-skilled transgender service members endangers the safety and security of our nation and takes us backward in our march towards equality.”
“Drumming out Americans from military service because of rank prejudice undermines our national defense and is a cruel slap in the face to transgender people,” Wyden said. “This bill acts on the core principle that equal treatment of Americans based solely on their ability to do the job must guide the armed forces and any other walk of life.”
In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order banning transgender individuals from joining and continuing to serve in the military. The Department of Defense (DoD) forced service members in active-duty to self-identify for voluntary separation by June 6, 2025; service members in the Reserves have until July 7, 2025.
While the ban continues to be litigated in federal court, the Supreme Court has allowed the DoD to begin to implement the ban, threatening the careers of thousands of service members who serve as test pilots, Navy divers, intelligence analysts, weapons specialists, combat aviators, and other critical national security roles. The ban also risks wasting billions of taxpayer dollars invested in training these troops, many of whom have spent decades in the military, have been deployed multiple times, and have commanded large numbers of troops.
Former Pentagon officials have testified that allowing transgender service members to openly serve “fosters openness and trust among team members, thereby enhancing unit cohesion” and that “transgender service members who meet the standards required for their positions serve effectively and contribute positively to unit readiness.”?
To ensure the United States can continue to benefit from the service of transgender individuals who have raised their hand to defend and protect their country and meet the same rigorous standards as their peers, the Fit to Serve Act would prohibit the DoD from:
Banning transgender service members from the military;
Prescribing qualifications for service on the basis of gender identity;
Denying necessary health care for service members on the basis of gender identity;
Forcing a service member to serve in their sex assigned at birth; or
Otherwise discriminating against service members on the basis of gender identity.
In addition to the Fit to Serve Act, Senators Merkley and Wyden have joined their Senate Democratic colleagues in a letter demanding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reverse course and not implement the Trump Administration’s un-American transgender military service ban. Merkley also led, and Wyden joined, the No Place for LGBTQ+ Hate Act, which would ensure that Trump’s hateful anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders, including the ban on transgender service members, have no force or effect, and that no federal funds are used to implement, administer, enforce, or carry out those executive orders.?
The Fit to Serve Act was led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). In addition to Merkley and Wyden, it is cosponsored by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
The full text of the Fit to Serve Act can be found by clicking here.
But aside from these issues the tournament, which features 32 clubs from around the world, provides fresh evidence of a new model emerging in global sport.
This event, which is being staged in 12 different cities across the US, is the latest experiment in “polycentric” hosting, where multiple locations collaborate as destinations for international sporting events.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
The next men’s Fifa World Cup in 2026 will take place across the US, Canada and Mexico. Four years later, the event will be spread across different continents, starting in South America, before moving to Europe and Africa. In between, the men’s Euros of 2028 will be co-hosted by the UK and Ireland.
The trend is not limited to football. The 2026 Winter Olympics is being shared in Italy between Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo. The Commonwealth Games are also moving towards a more pragmatic model of hosting.
Our research, which focused on the men’s Euro 2020 tournament (delayed by COVID and held in 2021), suggests that polycentric hosting has many advantages.
Spanning 11 European countries, Euro 2020 was conceived as a celebration of the tournament’s 60th anniversary.
From a branding perspective, this posed significant challenges. Each city had its own visual identity, with localised fan engagement strategies.
Without a singular geographic or cultural anchor, Uefa, the governing body of European football, had to balance the benefits of celebrating local diversity with the need for a coherent overarching narrative.
Instead of one city or nation shouldering the financial and logistical burden of building infrastructure, accommodating visitors, and managing security and transport, responsibilities were shared.
A team effort
This can significantly reduce the risk of the problem of “white elephants” where expensive stadiums or facilities fall into disuse after an event has finished.
By using infrastructure and venues which already exist, the environmental and economic costs of hosting are minimised. It also makes hosting more feasible for countries that might not have the capacity to do it alone.
At the same time, many of the perceived benefits of staging sports events – such as economic boosts to local economies, increases in tourism, improved transport links, and civic pride – can be shared more widely. Rather than one host reaping all the rewards, several places can potentially benefit, engaging local communities and stimulating regional development.
Collaborative multi-host formats also allow for widespread sharing of knowledge and opportunities for innovation. When cities and organising committees work together, they can bring diverse perspectives, cultural insights, operational practices, and even healthy competition to the table.
We found that the development of friendly rivalries between Euro 2020 hosts actually encouraged a competitive mindset that motivated organising committee staff to attempt to outperform counterpart cities.
Meanwhile Uefa enabled those different cities to develop branding strategies which reflected local character while contributing to a broader European narrative of unity through sport. One example was each city selecting a landmark bridge to tie in with the tournament’s overarching “bridging Europe” theme.
This collaborative way of thinking also led to creative and inclusive ideas. Glasgow, for example, integrated a cultural festival into its role as a host city, featuring local artists and musicians.
Polycentric tournaments aren’t without challenges of course. There is a risk of fragmentation, where the tournament feels like a series of disconnected mini-events rather than something cohesive.
But overall, the environmental, economic and cultural benefits can be substantial. And what began as a celebratory one-off with Euro 2020 is fast becoming the design for future major sport events.
By sharing the spotlight, cities and countries also share the strain and the opportunity. The age of the single host nation isn’t over, and the looming Saudi Arabia 2034 World Cup is a stark reminder that above all, money still talks. But the era of shared hosting is clearly here, and might just be what global sport and its fans need.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Google sued Chile-based LATAM Airlines in U.S. federal court on Thursday, seeking a declaration that Brazilian courts cannot force the tech giant to take down a YouTube video in the U.S. that accused a LATAM employee of sexually abusing a child.
Alphabet’s Google, which owns YouTube, said in the lawsuit that LATAM was attempting to “make an end-run” around protections for free speech under the U.S. Constitution by suing in Brazil to force the video’s removal worldwide.
“LATAM has not received any official communication about the court case,” the company told Reuters.
Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement that the company has “long supported the legal principle that courts in a country have jurisdiction over content available in that country, but not over what content should be available in other countries.”
Right-wing social media companies Trump Media and Rumble filed a similar lawsuit in Florida in February against a Brazilian judge who had ordered them to remove the U.S.-based accounts of a leading supporter of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. A federal judge decided in the case that the companies were not required to comply with the order in the United States.
According to Google’s lawsuit filed in San Jose, California, U.S. citizen and Florida resident Raymond Moreira posted two YouTube videos in 2018 of his 6-year-old son outlining allegations of sexual abuse that the child said he experienced from a LATAM employee while traveling as an unaccompanied minor.
Moreira sued LATAM in Florida in 2020 over the alleged abuse, which led to a confidential settlement.
LATAM sued Google in Brazil in 2018 seeking an order to remove the video from YouTube. A Brazilian appeals court is set to consider next week whether it has the authority to order Google to take down the video worldwide.
Google asked the court in California on Thursday to declare that LATAM cannot force the tech giant to remove the video in the United States.
Canada’s Supreme Court upheld an order for Google to remove some search results worldwide in a separate case in 2018. A California judge halted that order’s U.S. enforcement in 2017.
Source: United States Senator Peter Welch (D-Vermont)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, this week joined Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, for a forum entitled “The Role of Foreign Assistance in Supporting American Farmers and Protecting American Agriculture.” At the forum, Senator Welch examined how the Trump Administration’s continued attack on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), other governmental agencies, and federally-supported foreign assistance organizations have exacerbated global hunger.
“What strikes me is that there’s a fair amount of humility in folks who work in an organization—through Republican and Democratic administrations—where you have this expertise because you understand that you have to have institutions and structures to be able to sustain a food delivery system. Everything from how farmers grow, to averting pests, to coming up with delivery mechanisms to get food to people who need it,” said Senator Welch.
“One of the things that’s so disturbing to me about what is happening and the way it’s happening is that we’re destroying the capacity at every step along the way. And it’s not as though you can flip a switch and those people who have expertise suddenly are going to come back.”
Watch Senator Welch’s full remarks below:
“Vermont farmers—all farmers—they love to feed people…And now, it’s my understanding that we actually have food that is available for distribution, but it’s sitting in warehouses because of the cuts that have been made, so that the people who can take the food from the warehouse, outside of the doors of the warehouse, and put it on a table for hungry children to eat were not there—is that true?” asked Senator Welch.
Sarah Charles, Former Assistant to the Administrator for Humanitarian Assistance at USAID, testified: “It is certainly my understanding that the career staff that are left at USAID have been working furiously around the clock—even knowing that they’ve been fired—to find ways to get that food into the hands of partners that can use that food. The food is there…it has been bureaucratic process, after bureaucratic process, after bureaucratic process.”
Senators Welch, Shaheen, and Klobuchar were joined at the forum by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
Senator Welch has been a leading voice in pushing back against the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle and defund key federal agencies and food programs. Earlier this week, Senator Welch slammed the Trump Administration’s reckless request to rescind $9.4 billion in Fiscal Years (FY) 2024 and 2025 congressionally-appropriated funds, which provide vital support to Americans through public broadcasting and radio networks and promote U.S. global leadership.
Last month, Senator Welch led 29 of his Senate colleagues in introducing a resolution calling on the Trump Administration to use all diplomatic tools at its disposal to bring an end to the blockade of food and lifesaving humanitarian aid to address the needs of civilians in Gaza.
In February, Senator Welch took to the Senate floor to speak on President Trump and Elon Musk’s unconstitutional actions to dismantle USAID and called on Congress to protect the agency, which has played an indispensable role in protecting the interests, security, and reputation of the United States around the globe. Senator Welch also sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding an urgent response to the baseless mass-firings of over 5,500 federal employees at USAID.
Senator Welch also joined colleagues in introducing the Foreign Assistance Accountability and Oversight Act, legislation to expand congressional oversight of foreign assistance decision-making by requiring the State Department’s Director of Foreign Assistance to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Last Congress, Senator Welch led the introduction of the Streamlining International Food Assistance Act to strengthen the United States’ ability to address global hunger by allowing USAID to use funds from the Food for Peace (FFP) food aid program to provide donations of U.S. commodities, alongside cash transfers and other forms of assistance, in an effort to better assist food insecure communities.
The Middle East is undergoing a realignment of power. With Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear sites and the assassination of at least two of Iran’s senior security officials, Benjamin Netanyahu is showing his willingness to go it alone and ignore pressure from the Trump administration.
Though Donald Trump sought diplomatic solutions to the growing tensions between Israel and Iran, it appears that the US president, despite his previously strong relationship with the Israeli leader, was unable to restrain Netanyahu.
The timing of the strikes is important. The Trump administration probably knew that they could not prevent Israel from striking Iran, but they did think they could pressure Israel to hold off launching an attack until after the US had solidified a new nuclear deal with Iran, talks for which were scheduled for June 15.
Just hours before the air strikes, Trump said: “As long as I think there will be an agreement [with Iran], I don’t want them going in.”
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Trump, following months of groundwork laid by the Joe Biden administration, managed to secure a ceasefire deal with Israel in January. But as part of the negotiation, Netanyahu succeeded in reversing sanctions on settlers in the West Bank, giving him free rein to act there. Additionally, the US also lifted its freeze on the transfer of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, another concession that benefited Israel.
The US also proved unwilling or incapable of stopping the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Gaza. Washington also appeared powerless to stop Israel’s pounding of Lebanon and its efforts to eradicate the Iran-backed militia Hezbollah.
The US has become more of a spectator than a powerful regional actor. And sources suggest that Washington was not informed in advance of Israel’s airstrike that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in October 2024, a sign of Israel’s growing willingness to act without US approval.
Indeed, the expansion of the war in Gaza to Lebanon was a pivotal moment in the region. With significant Israeli public support to stop Hezbollah (which had been launching rockets towards northern Israel), Israel pounded southern Beirut with airstrikes, killing several high-ranking Hezbollah officials.
In the aftermath, Hezbollah was unable to replenish itself with younger recruits (it had relied on its charismatic leadership to recruit in the past), and the losses caused Hezbollah’s organisation to implode. By November 2024, Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the US.
Israel announces strikes on Iran.
Iran’s weaker role
Hezbollah’s near military and organisational collapse has been a big blow for Iran’s regional power. Hezbollah was at one point the most heavily armed violent non-state actor in the world. It had an army of around 50,000 men and experts speculated that it had as many as 200,000 rockets and missiles of various ranges in its arsenal.
With the assassination of so many high-level officials in Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which Iran has bankrolled and used in its proxy conflicts with Israel, Iran has been severely weakened. As Iran is in the middle of an economic crisis, it no longer has the financial means to revive these traditional allies.
For decades Iran had tried to gain strategic depth in the Middle East, with the US estimating that Iran spent more than US$16 billion to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria from 2012 to 2020. Additionally, with the fall of Assad, Syria can no longer serve as a transit corridor or logistical hub for shipments of arms from Iran to Hezbollah.
With Turkey’s support for the various armed militias that ousted the Assad regime, it is Ankara, and not Tehran, that sees itself as the big winner in the aftermath of the Syrian civil war.
US plans for Middle East threatened
The US, meanwhile, is seeing its influence in the Middle East waning. And Trump’s plan for extending trade in the region, particularly in the Gulf, may also be undermined by the rising regional tension.
The US had been due to send Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to this weekend’s talks in Oman, with the aim of getting Tehran to agree to stop enriching uranium (which is crucial for creating nuclear weapons) in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Trump had said that he did not want Israel to go ahead with its attack on Iran, and yet these calls went unheeded.
Some US officials were optimistic that the escalating tensions taking place between Iran and Israel were mere tactics of negotiation amid the important nuclear talks. But, though the US was clearly warned about the attack, Washington was not able to deter Israel.
Though the US still supplies Israel with US$3.8 billion (£2.8 billion) worth of arms per year, it has had little success in exercising much leverage recently. It remains to be seen if domestic political pressure could halt this US funding.
International relations experts should not be surprised that Israel went on the offensive in Iran. Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah in 2024 were just a precursor to the bigger prize of bringing Iran to its knees.
For Netanyahu, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the Middle East and shift the regional power dynamics, and he appears to care little about what the US, or the rest of the world, thinks of how he does it.
Natasha Lindstaedt 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.
This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.
It’s Donald Trump’s birthday this weekend, and he is planning a big bash to celebrate. There will be a full-colour parade in the nation’s capital. Expected to attend are a whole bunch of military vehicles, from a second world war bomber to M1 Abrams battle tanks to Paladin self-propelled howitzers.
The cavalcade will take a route through the grander streets of Washington DC making its way along Constitution Avenue all the way to the Lincoln memorial, with an expected 6,600 soldiers in attendance. The whole thing is estimated by the Associated Press to cost around US$45 million (£33 million).
This splashy show of Trump’s power and the US’s military strength could serve as a warning to anyone who was thinking of crossing the US right now. Trump is, of course, the commander-in-chief of the US forces. And he was using the full strength of his position, some argue going beyond it, when he sent the national guard and the marines – bypassing the state governor – to the streets of Los Angeles in the past few days.
There are now, according to ABC News, more US troops on the streets of LA than in Syria and Iraq. This was necessary, Trump claimed, to address protests over immigration raids that broke out around LA. Something that Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesperson, said this week was “exactly what the American people voted for”.
While Trump is testing how far he can flex his political and military muscle at home, as the Open University’s Sinead McEneaney has detailed, he is also using what some historians have called unprecedented use of power, by sending in the marines to take action against Americans, while California governor Gavin Newsom said the troops were not wanted, or needed.
Newsom is pushing back hard, and publicly, against Trump. Something, that Natasha Lindstaedt at the University of Essex, believes could propel Newsom higher up the Democrat selection list for a presidential nomination.
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.
While signalling his military strength to those on the streets of California, Trump has also been sending a strong message to his erstwhile international allies that he might not be quite as willing to share his military hardware with them as they might have thought they had been promised. The US administration has opened a review of the Aukus (the Australia, UK and US defence pact) and in particular its nuclear submarine deal, to see whether it meets the “America first” criteria. This deal was due to help all three countries scale up their submarine capacity.
Australia already transferred US$500 million to the US this year, as part of a down payment on the deal, with the expectation of receiving used US submarines in the near future. Canberra and London have been speedily revising their reliance on Trump as a security partner in the past few months. This is yet another signal from Washington that they definitely should.
John Blaxland , a professor at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, argues that Trump is angling to renegotiate the Aukus deal but won’t scrap it.
“There are a few key reasons for this. We’re several years down the track already. We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. Industrially, we’re on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don’t fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations.”
Meanwhile, Mark Beeson, an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University, believes that Australia is locked into the foreign and strategic policies of “an increasingly polarised, authoritarian and unpredictable regime” and should rethink its international relationships.
Beeson quotes an essay from another Australian academic, Hugh White, from Australian National University: “It is classic Trump to expect more and more from allies while he offers them less and less.”
In a military arena where most of the world would like Trump to apply a little more pressure, he continues to hold back and Vladimir Putin continues not to do a peace deal. Putin showed no sign of calling off his troops (or drones) from attacking Ukraine this week.
But as the onslaught continued Russia is expected to hit a horrific target this month, 1 million casualties in the war. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have died forcing Putin to get increasingly creative in coming up with ways to fill the gaps on the battlefields.
According to some reports he is sending the wounded back to fight before they are fully recovered, as well as offering large financial incentives to those who join up, and their families. The conflict continues and the death toll does, too. As Russian politics expert Jenny Mathers at the University of Aberystwyth points out, even before the war the country had a demographic crisis, and now that is even more extreme.
Russian women who want to earn the newly reinstated “Mother Heroine” award by bearing and raising ten or more children may struggle to find men to father them now, and after the war. Putin, like Trump, is fond of suggesting there is a glowing future for those who support him. The Russian leader has even created a Time of Heroes programme for war veterans who are promised a fast track into an elite career on their return from battle. Whether, of course, they do return when an estimated 53 casualties are being lost per square kilometre of land gained in eastern Ukraine is not a gamble many would like to take.
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.
Source: People’s Republic of China – Ministry of National Defense
BEIJING, June 13 — “We hope the US side will stop playing up the alleged ‘China threat’, respect China’s core interests,” said Senior Colonel Jiang Bin, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense, at a press briefing on Friday.
The spokesperson made the remarks when being asked to comment on the expectations on China-US mil-to-mil relations. It is reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping had a phone call with US President Donald Trump at the request of the latter. President Xi pointed out that the two sides should enhance communication in such fields as foreign affairs, economy and trade, military and law enforcement.
The spokesperson noted that China always upholds the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, and stays committed to promoting a steady, sound and sustainable development of China-US military-to-military relationship.
“We hope the US side will stop playing up the alleged ‘China threat’, earnestly respect China’s core interests and major concerns, and work with China towards the same direction to strengthen communication and dialogue, properly manage differences and enhance mutual understanding and mutual trust, so as to jointly improve and develop the relationship between the two militaries,” stressed the spokesperson.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman John Moolenaar (4th District of Michigan)
Headline: Moolenaar Votes to Cut Wasteful Spending
Today, Congressman John Moolenaar voted in favor of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025. The legislation permanently cuts over $9.4 billion dollars in wasteful spending identified by the Trump administration. The rescissions package contains 21 requests from the administration to halt funding for programs within the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and other international assistance programs.
“Today’s legislation is a win for the American people because it addresses the broken status quo in Washington and cuts billions of dollars in wasteful spending. Michigan residents work hard, and they expect their tax dollars to be used responsibly, not spent on international projects which have no impact on their lives, or clearly biased news coverage of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It’s long overdue that Washington fixes it’s spending problem, and this legislation is a major step in reducing the alarming waste in the federal bureaucracy,” said Moolenaar.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration identified millions of dollars allocated by USAID to wasteful projects with little oversight. USAID is currently being restructured by the Department of State to be more aligned with American foreign policy goals.
Last year, a whistleblower at National Public Radio alleged the organization has lost the public trust and that all of the 87 NPR newsroom employees were registered democrats. NPR has even accepted an additional $1.9 million in taxpayer dollars for “editorial enhancement” in recognition of their current bias.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Rick Larsen (2nd Congressional District Washington)
Larsen Releases Statement on Israel Striking Iran
Washington, D.C., June 13, 2025
Today, Representative Rick Larsen released the following statement:
“The recent targeted Israeli attack on Iran was not indiscriminate or random. Israel has a right to self-defense and, with Trump administration’s faltering efforts at negotiations with Iran, the country determined it needed to act to protect its people. The United States should stand with Israel at this time.
“Iran understands that Israel can demonstrate its will to defend itself. I now call on both countries to take steps to de-escalate and for the United States and Iran to continue negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program, preferably involving the international community which previously resulted in strict limitations on the Iranians.”
In the early days of the second Trump administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down data and documents that included sexual orientation and gender identity from its webpages. For example, data codebooks for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were replaced with versions that deleted gender identity variables. The Trump administration also ordered the CDC to delete gender identity from the National Violent Death Reporting System, the world’s largest database for informing prevention of homicide and suicide deaths.
For many people, sexual orientation and gender identity may seem private and personal. So why is personal information necessary for public health?
Decades of research have shown that health problems affect some groups more than others. As someone who has studied differences in health outcomes for over 15 years, I know that one of the largest health disparities for LGBTQ+ people is suicide risk. Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, public health cannot do the work to sound the alarm on and address issues that affect not just specific communities, but society as a whole.
Clinicians are concerned about the purging of health data that is essential to patient care.
Alarms and benchmarks
Health is determined by the interplay of several factors, including a person’s genetics, environment and personal life. Of these types of health information, data on personal lives can be the most difficult to collect because researchers must rely on people to voluntarily share this information with them. But details about people’s everyday lives are critical to understanding their health.
Consider veteran status. Without information that identifies which Americans are military veterans, the U.S. would never have known that the rate of suicide deaths among veterans is several times higher than that of the general population. Identifying this problem encouraged efforts to reduce suicide among veterans and military service personnel.
Studying the rates of different conditions occurring in different groups of people is a vital role of public health monitoring. First, rates can set off alarm bells. When people are counted, it becomes easier to pick up a problem that needs to be addressed.
Second, rates can be a benchmark. Once the extent of a health problem is known, researchers can develop and test interventions. They can then determine if rates of that health problem decreased, stayed the same or increased after the intervention.
My team reviewed available research on how sexual orientation and gender identity are related to differences in mortality. The results were grim.
Of the 49 studies we analyzed, the vast majority documented greater rates of death from all causes for LGBTQ+ people compared with people who aren’t LGBTQ+. Results were worse for suicide: Nearly all studies reported that suicide deaths were more frequent among LGBTQ+ people. A great deal of other research supports this finding.
Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, these issues are erased.
Lost data costs everyone
Higher death rates among LGBTQ+ people affect everyone, not just people in the LGBTQ+ community. And when suicide is a major driver of these death rates, the costs increase.
There are societal costs. Deaths from suicide result in lost productivity and medical services that cost the U.S. an estimated $484 billion per year. There are also human costs. Research suggests that for every suicide death, about 135 people are directly affected by the loss, experiencing grief, sadness and anger.
President Donald Trump’s targeting of research on sexual orientation and gender identity comes at a time when more Americans than ever – an estimated 24.4 million adults – identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s more than the entire population of Florida.
Stopping data collection of sexual orientation and gender identity does not protect women, or anyone else, as the Trump administration claims. Rather, it serves to weaken American public health. I believe counting all Americans is the path to a stronger, healthier nation because public health can then do its duty of detecting when a community needs help.
John R. Blosnich receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however all time and effort into writing this piece was done outside of his work with the VA. The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Blosnich and do not necessarily represent those of his institution, funders, or any affiliations.
Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
June 13, 2025
Video of Exchange (YouTube)
Washington, D.C. — At a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) questioned Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent on Republicans’ hypocrisy on raising the deficit with Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”
Senator Warren highlighted the hypocrisy of Secretary Bessent’s support for cutting crucial social programs to decrease the national debt, while also supporting adding trillions to the deficit to give billionaires and giant corporations tax cuts.
Secretary Bessent, with no evidence, said he believed the tax bill would decrease the deficit.
Senator Warren pointed out that “[e]very credible, independent expert agrees that Trump and the Republicans’ ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ will add trillions to the national debt and would not even come close to paying for itself…Even Elon Musk and the Wall Street Journal are criticizing the bill for ballooning the national debt.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has revealed the Republican tax bill would increase the deficit by $3 trillion. Secretary Bessent said only that he “[doesn’t] agree with the CBO.”
“[W]hy is the national debt so very important that you’re trying to kick 16 million people off their health insurance, but increasing the national debt doesn’t seem to matter if you’re cutting taxes for billionaires and billionaire corporations?” Senator Warren asked.
Bessent attempted to downplay the health care cuts by saying the “figure is overstated by 5.1 million,” and falsely claimed Medicaid is granted to undocumented people.
“[T]he part that troubles me the most is that the Secretary is deeply worried about the deficit and is willing to knock 16 million, or as he says, ‘merely 11 million,’ people off their health care [because it] matters so much, but it doesn’t matter so much if you’re cutting taxes for billionaires…I think that’s wrong,” concluded Senator Warren.
Transcript: Hearing on the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget for the Department of Treasury and Tax ReformSenate Finance CommitteeJune 12, 2025
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to ask about the Republican “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which will knock about 16 million off their healthcare coverage and cut programs that keep groceries cheaper for millions of families, in order to try to pay for about $4 trillion in tax giveaways, that are mostly going to be sucked up by millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations.
So, Secretary Bessent, I’d like to start with a very simple question: will this bill increase or decrease the deficit?
Mr. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury: There are varying scoring on that, Senator Warren.
Senator Warren: You’re the Secretary of the Treasury, so I’m asking you: what is your view? Will this bill increase or decrease the deficit?
Secretary Bessent: It is my view that over the ten-year window, it will decrease.
Senator Warren: You know, do you have anybody who agrees with you on this?
Secretary Bessent: Yes, ma’am.
Senator Warren: Let me ask my question.
Secretary Bessent: Okay.
Senator Warren: Every credible, independent expert agrees that Trump and the Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” will add trillions to the national debt and would not even come close to paying for itself. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Penn Wharton Budget Model, and the Yale Budget Lab all agree on this, and they are looking at ten-year windows, thank you. So do the conservative Tax Foundation and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget—conservative groups.
Even Elon Musk and the Wall Street Journal are criticizing the bill for ballooning the national debt. The only people who are saying publicly that it is not going to add to the national debt are you, Donald Trump, the Republicans in Congress. Do you have an independent group that has put forward numbers that disagrees with all of these conservative groups and disagrees with the Wall Street Journal on this?
Secretary Bessent: Well, Senator, it’s interesting to see you aligned with Elon Musk, but if I might—
Senator Warren: You’re no more shocked than I am.
Secretary Bessent: If we want to take the full Congressional Budget scoring, they predict, and I don’t agree with their methodology, they predict a $2.4 trillion deficit, but—
Secretary Warren: Okay, so the answer to the question is yes.
Secretary Bessent: No, no, no. But may I finish? They include that, but they’ve also scored $2.8 trillion in tariff income. So even, even in Washington, D.C. math, that is a $400 billion surplus.
Senator Warren: Okay, so let me make sure I understand. This bill, you admit, will increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion, but you think there will be another bill and another set of agreements that somehow materialize. Haven’t materialized so far, don’t have any statutory authority, but that will make up the difference.
So the answer to the original question, will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? I think you just said it will increase. This bill increases the deficit, is that right?
Secretary Bessent: I will use all the CBO scoring, and you can’t take one without the other. I don’t agree with the CBO.
Senator Warren: One is the law that we are scoring, the bill that is in front of us. We don’t have a tariff bill in front of us to score. Mr. Secretary, let me go on to the second question. You have said that government spending is, quote, “out of control.” You have also called government spending, quote, “unsustainable.” In fact, in the name of fiscal responsibility, you’re working with the Republicans on this “big, beautiful bill” to pass the biggest cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in American history.
So, Mr. Secretary, help me understand here: why is the national debt so very important that you’re trying to kick 16 million people off their health insurance, but increasing the national debt doesn’t seem to matter if you’re cutting taxes for billionaires and billionaire corporations?
Secretary Bessent: Well, first of all, a huge portion of this goes to family-owned businesses that are passed through entities that are below that level, Senator, and I am sure you share my goals of Main Street prosperity.
Senator Warren: You know, I’m glad to do tax cuts for people of modest means. The question I’m asking is, why does the deficit not matter to you when we’re talking about knocking 16 million people off their health care? But it matters not—It does matter to you if we’re knocking people off their health care, but not if—
Secretary Bessent: Well, first of all, that figure is overstated by 5.1 million. That is an amount not attributable to provisions in this bill.
Senator Warren: So you think it’s okay to knock ten million people off.
Secretary Bessent: Well, first of all, let’s set that straight. Work requirements account for 8 million of CBO’s claim number. Again, we’re creating an economy that promotes and rewards—
Senator Warren: So it’s clear, Secretary Bessent, you don’t want to answer the question.
Secretary Bessent: Senator, I am answering.
Senator Warren: No, you’re not.
Secretary Bessent: And what I want is for Medicaid to be used for mothers and children as it was meant, not for 1.4 million illegal aliens, not for able-bodied people—
Senator Warren: Medicaid is not used for people who are not documented. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say here the part that troubles me the most is that the Secretary is deeply worried about the deficit and is willing to knock 16 million, or as he says, “merely 11 million,” people off their health care—matters so much, but it doesn’t matter so much if you’re cutting taxes for billionaires, then it’s okay to run up a big deficit. I think that’s wrong.
