Tonight, late on a Sunday night, the House Budget Committee passed what Republicans are calling their “Big, Beautiful Bill” to enact Trump’s agenda although it had failed on Friday when far-right Republicans voted against it, complaining it did not make deep enough cuts to social programs.
The vote tonight was a strict party line vote, with 16 Democrats voting against the measure, 17 Republicans voting for it, and 4 far right Republicans voting “present.” House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said there would be “minor modifications” to the measure; Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) wrote on X that those changes include new work requirements for Medicaid and cuts to green energy subsidies.
And so the bill moves forward.
In The Bulwark today, Jonathan Cohn noted that Republicans are in a tearing hurry to push that Big, Beautiful Bill through Congress before most of us can get a handle on what’s in it. Just a week ago, Cohn notes, there was still no specific language in the measure. Republican leaders didn’t release the piece of the massive bill that would cut Medicaid until last Sunday night and then announced the Committee on Energy and Commerce would take it up not even a full two days later, on Tuesday, before the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office could produce a detailed analysis of the cost of the proposals. The committee markup happened in a 26-hour marathon in which the parts about Medicaid happened in the middle of the night. And now, the bill moves forward in an unusual meeting late on a Sunday night.
Cohn recalls that in 2009, when the Democrats were pushing the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as Obamacare, that measure had months of public debate before it went to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. That committee held eight separate hearings about healthcare reform, and it was just one of three committees working on the issue. The ACA markup took a full two weeks.
Cohn explains that Medicaid cuts are extremely unpopular, and the Republicans hope to jam those cuts through by claiming they are cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse” without leaving enough time for scrutiny. Cohn points out that if they are truly interested in savings, they could turn instead to the privatized part of Medicare, Medicare Part D. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that cutting overpayments to Medicare Part D when private insurers “upcode” care to place patients in a higher risk bracket, could save more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
Instead of saving money, the Big, Beautiful Bill actually blows the budget deficit wide open by extending the 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that those extensions would cost at least $4.6 trillion over the next ten years. And while the tax cuts would go into effect immediately, the cuts to Medicaid are currently scheduled not to hit until 2029, enabling the Republicans to avoid voter fury over them in the midterms and the 2028 election.
The prospect of that debt explosion led Moody’s on Friday to downgrade U.S. credit for the first time since 1917, following Fitch, which downgraded the U.S. rating in 2023, and Standard & Poor’s, which did so back in 2011. “If the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is extended, which is our base case,” Moody’s explained, “it will add around $4 trillion to the federal fiscal primary (excluding interest payments) deficit over the next decade. As a result, we expect federal deficits to widen, reaching nearly 9% of GDP by 2035, up from 6.4% in 2024, driven mainly by increased interest payments on debt, rising entitlement spending and relatively low revenue generation.”
On the Sunday talk shows this morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismissed the downgrade, saying it reflected conditions already in the market (although Moody’s explicitly said it was concerned about the potential passage of the Republicans’ Big, Beautiful Bill). House speaker Mike Johnson said that the credit downgrade just proved the need for the measure with its “historic spending cuts” to pass (although Moody’s named that bill as its reason for the downgrade).
The continuing Republican insistence that spending is out of control does not reflect reality. In fact, discretionary spending has fallen more than 40% in the past 50 years as a percentage of gross domestic product, from 11% to 6.3%. What has driven rising deficits are the George W. Bush and Donald Trump tax cuts, which had added $8 trillion and $1.7 trillion, respectively, to the debt by the end of the 2023 fiscal year.
But rather than permit those tax cuts to expire— or even to roll them back— the Republicans continue to insist Americans are overtaxed. In fact, the U.S. is far below the average of the 37 other nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an intergovernmental forum of democracies with market economies, in its tax levies. According to a report by the Center for American Progress in 2023, if the U.S. taxed at the average OECD level, over ten years it would have an additional $26 trillion in revenue. If the U.S. taxed at the average of European Union nations, it would have an additional $36 trillion.
But instead of considering taxes to address the deficit, in the 2024 campaign, Trump insisted that foreign countries would pay for further tax cuts through tariffs, no matter how often economists said that tariffs are passed on to consumers.
In October 2024, when editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News John Micklethwait corrected Trump’s misunderstanding of the way tariffs work in an interview at the Economic Club of Chicago, Trump replied: “It must be hard for you to, you know, spend 25 years talking about tariffs as being negative and then have somebody explain to you that you're totally wrong.” Referring to analysis that his plans would explode the national debt, including analysis by the Wall Street Journal—hardly a left-wing outlet, as Mickelthwait pointed out—Trump replied: “What does the Wall Street Journal know?... They’ve been wrong about everything. So have you, by the way. You’ve been wrong about everything…. You’ve been wrong all your life on this stuff.”
Walmart’s suggestion that it will have to raise prices because of tariffs is forcing the administration to try to manage reality. “We’re wired for everyday low prices, but the magnitude of these increases is more than any retailer can absorb,” Walmart's chief financial officer John David Rainey during an interview with CNBC on Thursday. Rainey predicted higher prices by June.
In response Trump appeared to agree that tariffs are paid by consumers, posting that Walmart should “‘EAT THE TARIFFS,’ and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!” Today, Bessent reassured Americans that he had spoken to the CEO of Walmart, Doug McMillon, who had agreed that Walmart would, in fact, eat some of the tariffs.
So with the current Big, Beautiful Bill, we are looking at a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to those at the top of American society. The Democratic Women’s Caucus has dubbed the measure the “Big Bad Billionaire Bill.”
Lest there be any confusion about who will benefit from this Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the many pieces tucked into it is a prohibition on any state laws to regulate artificial intelligence for the next ten years.
Despite its gargantuan energy demands, harm to the environment, and threats to privacy, the administration is pushing AI hard, and the country’s leading AI entrepreneurs, including Elon Musk, Sam Altman of OpenAI, Jensen Huang of Nvidia, Ruth Porat of Google’s parent company Alphabet, and Andy Jassy of Amazon all traveled with Trump to Saudi Arabia last week. The Saudis are looking to diversify their oil-dependent economy and are now the world’s largest investors in artificial intelligence.
Speaker Johnson hopes to pass the bill through the House of Representatives by this Friday, before Memorial Day weekend.
In other news today, the office of former president Joe Biden announced he is battling an aggressive form of prostate cancer. As vice president and president, Biden was a fierce advocate for cancer research, with the goal of reducing the death rate from cancer by at least 50 percent by 2047, preventing more than 4 million deaths from cancer, and improving the experience of individuals and families living with and surviving cancer.
And in international news, Romanian voters today rejected a far-right nationalist who deliberately styled his behavior after Trump and whose victory, until recently, was being treated as a foregone conclusion. Instead, voters elected the centrist mayor of Bucharest, Nicușor Dan. Even before the election, Dan’s opponent insisted the election was illegitimate, claimed that he was the new leader, and called for his supporters to protest in favor of his election. But in the end, Dan’s 8-point victory was too much to overcome and he conceded.
“This is your victory,” Dan told his supporters. “It’s the victory of thousands and thousands of people who campaigned [and] believed that Romania can change in the correct direction.”
The Russian authorities on Monday outlawed Amnesty International as an “undesirable organization,” a label that under a 2015 law makes involvement with such organizations a criminal offense.
The designation means the international human rights group must stop any work in Russia, and it subjects those who cooperate with it or support it to prosecution, including if anyone shares Amnesty International’s reports on social media.
Russia’s list of “undesirable organizations” currently covers 223 entities, including prominent independent news outlets and rights groups. Among those are prominent news organizations like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty or Russian independent outlet Meduza, think tanks like Chatham House, anti-corruption group Transparency International, and Open Russia, an opposition group founded by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an exiled tycoon who became an opposition figure.
This surge is characterised not only by the volume and frequency of posts but also by the striking uniformity of their talking points. An in-depth analysis reveals that the narratives, which frequently align closely with Kremlin messaging, have become increasingly pervasive and are often disseminated under the guise of independent analysis or commentary.
A closer examination reveals a pattern that is too consistent to ignore. Multiple blogs, ostensibly independent from one another, are publishing content on an almost daily basis, often repeating near-identical narratives. The focus is usually on blaming NATO for the Ukraine conflict, accusing Ukraine’s leadership of extremism, or portraying the EU as self-destructive. These themes are repeated across platforms, suggesting that these writers are either being fed similar talking points or are consciously replicating Kremlin narratives.
The frequency of posts is another key indicator of coordination or artificial amplification. Producing well-structured, lengthy articles on a daily or near-daily basis would be a challenge for most solo writers. Yet these bloggers manage to maintain this output while following a consistent narrative arc. This is where suspicions arise: the writing itself often shows signs of being AI-generated. The consistent tone, repetitive phrasing, and sometimes awkward syntax are tell-tale signs that language models like ChatGPT are being used to mass-produce content.
The emergence of AI-generated content raises red flags. The sheer volume and the almost formulaic structure of these posts suggest that automated assistance is not just a tool but an integral part of the strategy. This allows these blogs to maintain a relentless pace of publication, pushing the same themes in a seemingly organic way. The result is an overwhelming presence online, creating the illusion of a broad, grassroots movement pushing pro-Russian narratives.
A particularly striking pattern is the choice, for some, to switch to Russian when addressing certain topics. While most content is in English, key articles, especially those framing Ukraine as a Nazi state or directly challenging Western military suppor, appear in Russian. This linguistic shift is not random. It serves to reach both domestic and diaspora Russian-speaking audiences, lending an air of authenticity to the narrative. It also aligns these bloggers more directly with the Kremlin’s domestic propaganda goals.
The big question remains: are these bloggers gullible individuals who truly believe they are offering independent perspectives, or are they knowingly amplifying state-sponsored disinformation?
The uniformity of messaging and frequency of output lean towards the latter. Whether consciously complicit or not, these writers are functioning as force multipliers for disinformation campaigns. By framing their output as independent analysis, they mask the apparent coordination and create an illusion of widespread dissent against Western policies.
The ultimate effect of these coordinated blogging efforts is a distorted information landscape. By flooding the internet with repetitive narratives, they shape perceptions among readers who may not be aware of the origins or motivations behind the content. This technique of saturation is particularly effective because it mirrors grassroots opposition, giving Kremlin narratives a veneer of legitimacy.
This new wave of pro-Russian blogs is not a spontaneous movement. The consistent themes, high output frequency, AI-generated text, and strategic language switching all point to a coordinated effort. Whether motivated by ideology, financial incentives, or direct influence from pro-Kremlin networks, these bloggers are contributing to a broader strategy of information warfare.
How would it be a bribe if it's not for Trump personally?
Some Republicans and loyal Trump supporters have raised other concerns about accepting the gift from Qatar.
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told CNBC that use of an aircraft from Qatar “poses significant espionage and surveillance problems.”
He also said, “I’m not a fan of Qatar. I think they have a really disturbing pattern of funding theocratic lunatics who want to murder us, funding Hamas and Hezbollah. And that’s a real problem.”
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, noting Qatar’s past financial support for terrorist organizations while currying the favor of American politicians, called Trump’s decision to accept the jet “shady behavior” that “undermines his agenda and credibility,” according to The Wrap.
Staunch Trump ally Laura Loomer also condemned accepting the aircraft from Qatar.
Trump himself in 2017 referred to Qatar as a sponsor of “Radical Ideology,” and he supported an economic and diplomatic blockade of the nation.
At his May 12 press conference, however, when he spoke about the gift of the luxury jet, Trump said, “I have a lot of respect for the leadership and for the leader of Qatar.”
In recent years, the Trump Organization and members of the president’s family have reached deals with businesses in Qatar, including a Trump International Golf Club and villas near Doha, Axios reported. source
Jacob T. Levy, a professor of political theory at McGill University, wrote in a Washington Post opinion column, “So how can the royal family of Qatar give Trump a $400 million ‘flying palace’ of a plane, one that will act as Air Force One during his presidency but remain his afterward?
“The answer lies in a problem that predates Trump: the presidential library system,” Levy wrote. The libraries are “established through private donations, from anyone, in any amount.”
“The Qatari plane will first be a time-limited gift to the Air Force. Shortly before Trump leaves office, after it has been upgraded at taxpayer expense, it will be transferred to the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund, which will then keep it available for the fund’s namesake. Presto: a gift to the Air Force becomes one to the library fund becomes a lavish lifetime perk for Trump personally,” Levy continued.
“As with donations to a presidential inaugural committee, gifts to the library fund fall between the cracks of campaign finance regulations and rules governing ethics in office.”
Super, the Georgetown law professor, told us, “The president has sweeping discretion on international affairs, and can make decisions that either serve or undermine Qatar’s interests in many ways. Having them give a $400 million gift to someone who’s exercising those powers, it creates a huge conflict of interest. I should note that the president’s lawyers have been asserting that he has especially broad authority in international affairs and is not subject to review by anyone else. So having someone with effectively unreviewable authority who can help or hurt Qatar receive such a gift is profoundly unethical.”
Whether or not Trump’s acceptance of the gift is unethical is, of course, a matter of opinion. ibid
The House Rules Committee will take up the Republicans’ omnibus bill this week. Illustrating their confidence that the American people support this 1,116-page measure enacting much of MAGA’s wish list, the committee has set its meeting for Wednesday, May 21, 2025…at 1:00 in the morning (not a typo). The Republicans are trying to advance Trump’s entire agenda—from massive logging on public lands to slashing Medicaid—in one giant bill under a process known as “budget reconciliation,” which means it cannot be filibustered in the Senate. That means it needs only Republican votes to pass.
But even Republicans are deeply divided over the measure. While far-right Republicans insist cuts to the social safety net are not deep enough because of the massive deficits the measure’s tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will create, other Republicans recognize that Medicaid cuts are hugely unpopular: according to a KFF poll released May 1, more than 75% of Americans oppose such cuts.
Catie Edmondson of the New York Times counts 12 swing-state Republicans who don’t want drastic Medicaid cuts, and 31 hardliners who do. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) can afford to lose only three Republican votes on the measure. Nicole Lafond of Talking Points Memo reported today that Trump will go to Capitol Hill tomorrow to talk Republicans into voting for the measure.
Right on cue, the administration served up another issue to draw attention. Trump lawyer Alina Habba, who is now serving as the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, announced that Representative LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) will be charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers. On May 19, McIver was one of three Democratic representatives from New Jersey who, along with Newark’s Democratic mayor Ras Baraka, went to the Delaney Hall Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark, New Jersey, for an oversight visit. Such visits are permitted by law as part of a congress member’s oversight responsibility.
As a mayor, Baraka was not covered by the law permitting congressional oversight. He waited outside the facility’s gates in a public area. Masked agents tried to arrest him there, and as Perry Stein, Jeremy Roebuck, and Liz Goodwin of the Washington Post reported, video released by the Department of Homeland Security showed McIver rushing after the agents and shouting to protesters outside to “surround the mayor.” The video shows a crowd of people jostling, and McIver’s elbows possibly making contact with a masked officer in the crush of the crowd, but no one breaks stride. McIver says she was the one assaulted by ICE officers. In a statement about charging McIver, Habba said “it is my Constitutional obligation to ensure that our federal law enforcement is protected when executing their duties.”
Charging a congressional representative after an event in which no one was injured is a dramatic move indeed, but the Washington Post reporters noted that: “[a]s of 10 p.m., no charging documents were posted in federal court, and a spokesperson for McIver’s legal team said neither she nor her lawyers had seen any charging documents.”
In a statement, McIver said she and her colleagues “were fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities, as members of Congress have done many times before, and our visit should have been peaceful and short. Instead, ICE agents created an unnecessary and unsafe confrontation when they chose to arrest Mayor Baraka. The charges against me are purely political—they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight…. I look forward to the truth being laid out clearly in court.”
Congressional Democrats are condemning this attack on their colleague. House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California, Vice Chair Ted Lieu of California, and Assistant Leader Joe Neguse of Colorado issued a statement saying, “The criminal charge against Congresswoman McIver is extreme, morally bankrupt and lacks any basis in law or fact.” Habba’s statement “is a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our ability to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch. House Democrats will not be intimidated by the Trump administration. Not today. Not ever.”
And they pushed back, warning: “Everyone responsible for this illegitimate abuse of power is going to be held accountable for their actions.”
At the same time, the Department of Justice announced it was dropping all charges against Baraka stemming from the attempt to examine the ICE facility. Ten days ago, Habba broke the Department of Justice rule that it would not comment on ongoing investigations by posting that Baraka had “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon. He has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state. He has been taken into custody. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.”
Except, apparently, those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Alan Feuer, Devlin Barrett, and Glenn Thrush of the New York Times reported today that the Department of Justice is considering settling a wrongful death lawsuit with the family of Ashli Babbitt, whom a law enforcement officer shot and killed as she tried to break into the Speaker’s Lobby outside the House floor. The amount they are considering, the journalists report, is $5 million.
Reports that Walmart will raise prices because of the tariffs have Trump officials panicking. Walmart is the largest retailer in the United States, with a 2023 retail revenue of $534 billion. Higher prices there will hurt poorer Americans, particularly those in rural areas, the demographic most likely to have supported Trump in the past.
This, just as cuts to funding for food programs by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in March—programs started during Trump’s first term—have slashed the amount of food available to food banks. A USDA spokesperson said in a statement: “There is no need for new programs, but perhaps more efficient and effective use of current.”
So Republicans today continued their campaign to pressure Walmart into, as Trump put it “eating” the tariff costs. On CNBC today, Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) suggested that Walmart leaders “need to think hard” about raising prices. “I think they're going to be very careful about how they do this. I know they've received some criticism from the president,” he said, adding: “They should know the president has been working very hard with China to make sure we get this thing addressed as quickly as possible.”
Nora Eckert and David Shepardson of Reuters reported that Subaru of America said today it will also be raising prices by between $750 and $2,055 on several models because of “current market conditions.” Executives recently told investors that the tariffs are expected to amount to $5 billion. Eckert and Shepardson reported that Ford raised prices on three models produced in Mexico by as much as $2,000.
Finally, today—because I actually planned to take tonight off, and so am not prepared to cover some very important legal developments and am putting them off until tomorrow so I get them right—Eric Lipton, Maggie Haberman, Adam Rasgon, and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times reported the backstory to the Qatari offer to give a 747 to Trump.
The planes serving as Air Force One are over 30 years old, and Boeing has a contract to build two new jets by 2024, a deadline far in the rear view with no new planes in sight. Apparently, Trump was angling for a new plane and put officials up to buying one. They identified eight options, one of which was the Qatari plane, which Qatar had been trying to sell for at least five years in part because of the enormous cost of operating such a plane. Qatar sent the jet to Florida at a cost the reporters estimate to be as much as $1 million on February 15 for Trump to see, and he loved it.
At that point, discussions turned from purchasing the plane to accepting it as a gift, although it was apparently not the Qataris who changed the terms—they were still expecting to sell it to the United States. A Qatari government official told the New York Times reporters that no decision had yet been made about a transfer rather than a sale. And Pentagon officials estimate that getting the plane repaired and ready for a president would cost at least $1 billion.
And yet, administration officials lined up to say that a $400 million gift from a foreign government to a U.S. president was just fine, despite its explicit prohibition in the Constitution. On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Qatar giving a plane to Trump was like France giving the Statue of Liberty to the U.S., or England giving the country the Resolute Desk.
These comparisons are not only wrong, but an offensive skewing of the real history of those gifts, which were intended to reinforce democracy, freedom, and the international cooperation of nations that value those principles.
It was the people of France who raised the money to send the Statue of Liberty, whose official name is “Liberty Enlightening the World,” to the United States to honor political democracy and freedom at the nation’s 100th anniversary. The people of the United States, in turn, raised the money for the statue’s pedestal. There was never any question about it being a personal gift to President Grover Cleveland. He would have refused it if such a thing were suggested, and Congress would have impeached him if he had not.
If the story of the Statue of Liberty is the story of the universal principles of democracy and freedom, the story of the Resolute Desk is one of diplomacy. After a famous British expedition to discover the Northwest Passage disappeared in the 1850s, a rescue expedition of five ships, including the HMS Resolute, set sail to find survivors. The Resolute became trapped in Arctic ice in April 1854 and her captain and crew abandoned the ship. When the ice thawed, the Resolute broke free and drifted south, where an American whaling ship found it in 1855. The captain, James Buddington, claimed it under the right of salvage.
At the time, tensions between the U.S. and England were high, and Congress decided to purchase the Resolute from Buddington, fix it up, and send it back to England as a gesture of goodwill and friendship from the American people. After the work was done, a U.S. naval officer and crew sailed the Resolute to England, where Queen Victoria and Prince Albert accepted it on behalf of all of Great Britain. The Royal Navy used the Resolute as a supply vessel for the next 23 years.
When the ship was decommissioned in 1879, the British government launched a public competition to design a piece of furniture that could be made of its timbers to give back to the United States. The winning design was a desk, and it arrived in the United States as a gift for President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880, bearing a plaque that recounted the history of the Resolute.
The plaque noted: “The ship was purchased, fitted out and sent to England, as a gift to Her Majesty Queen Victoria by the President and People of the United States, as a token of goodwill & friendship. This table was made from her timbers when she was broken up, and is presented by the Queen of Great Britain & Ireland, to the President of the United States, as a memorial of the courtesy and loving kindness which dictated the offer of the gift of the ‘Resolute'."
Today was a rough day for administration officials on Capitol Hill as Senate committees held hearings on the 2026 budget requests for the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of State. The Senate Finance Committee also held a hearing for Trump’s nominee to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue, former Missouri representative William “Billy” Long. Democrats came prepared and demanded answers that the department secretaries and nominee were either unable or unwilling to give.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee about the Department of Homeland Security's budget for fiscal year 2026. When Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) asked her to define “habeas corpus,” Noem’s response indicated she has no understanding of the nation’s fundamental law.
“Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country,” Noem said. Hassan corrected her: “Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people. If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason. Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea.”
Noem’s habit in these hearings is simply to ignore questions and to attack, and she tried that with Hassan, suggesting that the president has the right to suspend habeas corpus if circumstances require it. Her position echoes that of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, with whom she appears to be working to render immigrants to prisons in third countries, but it is dead wrong. The Constitution permits Congress to suspend habeas corpus; not the president.
While Republicans were generally supportive of the Republican officials in the hearings, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) used his time to beg Noem for help for Missouri. The state has suffered a number of natural disasters, including a deadly tornado last Friday, but the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not shown up.
“The state has pending three requests for major disaster declarations from earlier storms,” Hawley told Noem. “[W]e’ve lost almost 20 people now in major storms just in the last two months in Missouri.” The Department of Homeland Security oversees FEMA, and Hawley asked Noem to expedite the requests and get them in front of Trump. “We are desperate for… assistance in Missouri,” he said.
When Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) asked Noem how she planned to meet the needs of American people when the administration is cutting 20% of FEMA employees and the agency has lost most of its leadership, Noem talked over him and said the problem was that the Biden administration had failed the American people.
Over in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies, things didn’t go much better.
Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. exploded when Senator Patti Murray (D-WA) asked him whose decision it was to withhold childcare and development block grant funding. Kennedy immediately pivoted to former president Biden’s 2021 budget. When she tried to get him back on track, he continued to talk over her, accusing her of “presiding over the destruction of the health of the American people” and of not doing her job. Murray repeatedly tried to recall him to appropriate behavior, finally appealing to the Republican chair of the committee, who asked Kennedy to stop.
When Murray repeated her question, he simply said the decision was made “by my department.” While he refused to take responsibility for the cuts himself, Murray did get him to admit that the department has blocked billions of dollars in federal child care funding.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spelled out for Kennedy his concern about cuts to research funding for the neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), sometimes called Lou Gehrig’s disease. “On April 1, ten laboratory heads at National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes received their layoff notices,” he said. “They were all PhDs and senior investigators. They're not administrators, whatever that might be. They were running intramural labs at NIH. If you have your way, they'll all be gone on June 2nd. Science magazine reported 25 of 320 physician researchers at NIH's Internal Clinical Center are leaving, and the number of patients treated in the hospital has been reduced by 30%. Three grants involving ALS and dementia work at Northwestern University [in] Illinois have been paused…. Just last week, an ALS researcher at Harvard had his grant cut.” Durbin asked: “How can we possibly…give hope to people across the country who are suffering from so many diseases when our government is cutting back on that research?”
Kennedy replied: “I do not know about any cuts to ALS research.” When Durbin responded, “I just read them to you,” Kennedy reiterated that he didn’t “know about them until you told…me about them at this moment.”
Brenda Goodman of CNN noted that when Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Kennedy about ending the childhood lead poisoning prevention program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Kennedy assured Reed that “[w]e are continuing to fund the program.” Goodman notes that CNN reported in April that officials in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, had asked the CDC for help addressing lead hazards in Milwaukee Public Schools after the agency’s lead experts were fired. The CDC refused, possibly because Kennedy has said lead poisoning prevention would be moving from the CDC to his new “Administration for a Healthy America.”
Kennedy told Reed the federal government has “a team in Milwaukee, and we’re giving laboratory support to that, to the analytics in Milwaukee, and we’re working with the health department in Milwaukee.”
Officials in Milwaukee said that was untrue. “The City of Milwaukee Health Department is not receiving any federal epidemiological or analytical support related to the MPS lead hazard crisis. Our formal Epi Aid request was denied by the CDC,” spokesperson for the City of Milwaukee Health Department Caroline Reinwald told CNN. Earlier this month, Milwaukee’s health commissioner expressed dismay that the CDC’s entire team working on childhood lead exposure had been laid off. “These are the best and brightest minds in these areas around lead poisoning, and now they’re gone,” he said.
At the end of today’s hearing, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) corrected the record, saying to Kennedy: “There are no staff on the ground deployed to Milwaukee to address the lead exposure of children in schools, and there are no staff left in that office at CDC, because they have all been fired.”
Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took Secretary of State Marco Rubio to task for abandoning the principles they believed he held when they voted to confirm him.
The administration rendered Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen’s constituent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the notorious CECOT terrorist prison in El Salvador through what the administration said was “administrative error,” and yet officials are refusing to bring him back despite court orders to do so. Van Hollen reminded Rubio that they had served together in Congress for 15 years and that while they didn’t always agree, “I believe we shared some common values: a belief in defending democracy and human rights abroad and honoring the Constitution at home. That’s why I voted to confirm you. I believed you would stand up for those principles. You haven’t. You’ve done the opposite.”
Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) spoke to him “as a mother, a senator, and a fellow human being,” saying, “I'm not even mad anymore about your complicity in this administration's destruction of U.S. global leadership. I'm simply disappointed. And I wonder if you're proud of yourself in this moment when you go home to your family?" She noted how he appeared to have abandoned all his past principles, and said she no longer recognized him.
When Van Hollen told Rubio he regretted voting to confirm him as secretary of state, Rubio retorted: “Your regret for voting for me confirms I’m doing a good job.”
Billy Long had his own problems. In an opening statement, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) pointed out that Long was neither “an independent tax professional or somebody with extensive management experience.” He was simply a fierce Trump loyalist who would help Trump “use the IRS as a cudgel to beat his adversaries into submission.” Wyden also noted serious accusations against Long’s involvement with fraudulent tax schemes.
In his questioning, Wyden asked, “Did you promise any tax promoter you would help them if you got confirmed?” Long said no. Wyden followed up, asking if he had met with anyone when he was in Washington, D.C., for the inauguration and promised to help them. Long again said no, that he had been in his room for “about 50 hours” with food poisoning.
Wyden noted that staff investigators had tapes of a tax promoter saying he had met with Long at the inauguration and that Long had promised him favorable treatment. They also have another tape of a chief financial officer who had donated to Long after he was nominated for the IRS post, also saying he expected favorable treatment. Senators Wyden, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are currently investigating these tapes.
Warren took up Trump’s misuse of the IRS to hurt his opponents. Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status, although federal law expressly prohibits any official from using the IRS to punish any individual taxpayers. Warren tried to get Long to say it would be illegal for the president to direct the IRS to revoke a taxpayer’s nonprofit status, but he refused to. Warren concluded: “[T]he fact that you want to sit there and dance around about this tells me that you shouldn't be within 1,000 miles of the directorship of the IRS.”
The House was also a troubled place today, as Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) used a hearing of the House Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation Subcommittee, which she chairs, to accuse her ex-fiancé and other men of sexual abuse. She showed what she claimed were naked photos of herself and other women, taken without their consent. These accusations echo those she made in a speech in the House on February 10th. The men deny the allegations, and one is suing her for defamation. She is taking the position that her attacks on them in Congress are legally protected by the Constitution’s speech and debate clause.
If Republican lawmakers didn’t seem up to their jobs today, neither did the president. He announced a “Golden Dome” missile shield defense system—a U.S. version of Israel’s “Iron Dome”—that he claims will be operational in 3 years and cost $175 billion. Experts say it is not yet possible to construct such a defense system for intercontinental ballistic missiles and that such a project could cost as much as $542 billion.
When a reporter asked Trump about the cost, Trump claimed “we can afford to do it…we took in $5.1 trillion in the last four days in the Middle East,” a wildly made-up number. Such a system would likely benefit at least one person: it would depend on thousands of satellites, a requirement that seems likely to benefit billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
Administration officials today seemed to illustrate their utter disregard for the work their jobs require and their refusal to govern for Americans. Instead, they seem to see their offices as ways to get access to large amounts of money and power they can use to impose their will on the country.
Opinion
They have been quick to brand the new pope an ‘anti-Trump’ ‘total Marxist’. In return, he is already critiquing their worldview
In the outer reaches of the Magasphere, it would be fair to say the advent of the first pope from the US has not been greeted with unbridled enthusiasm. Take Laura Loomer, the thirtysomething influencer and conspiracy theorist, whose verdict on Leo XIV was as instant as it was theologically uninformed: “Anti-Trump, anti-Maga, pro-open Borders, and a total Marxist like Pope Francis.” Also doing the rounds on X was a short summary of Leo’s supposed transgressions before ascending to St Peter’s chair: “Trashed Trump, trashed Vance, trashed border enforcement, endorsed DREAMer-style illegal immigration, repeatedly praised and honored George Floyd, and endorsed a Democrat senator’s call for more gun control.”
So far, so tedious. The comic-book casting of the new pope as a globalist villain in the US culture wars is traceable back to his predecessor’s impact on liberal opinion a decade ago. Pope Francis’s sometimes lonely championing of progressive causes, such as the rights of migrants, gave him a kind of liberal celebrity and led Time magazine to name him “person of the year” in 2013. Pope Leo, born in Chicago, has been pre-emptively caricatured by much of the Maga right as a continuity pontiff who will, in effect, front up the religious wing of the Democratic party.
Leaving the simplistic conflation of religious perspective and political positioning aside, the truth is far more interesting than that. It may also be more challenging for Catholic Maga luminaries such as the vice-president, JD Vance, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump’s sometime adviser Steve Bannon if they are serious about their faith.
Bannon and Vance – a Catholic convert – are representatives of a traditionalist movement in the church, which sought to undermine Francis’s papacy at every turn and has become a kind of theological vanguard for the “America first” era. In January, Vance notoriously invoked St Augustine to justify the Trump administration’s decision to cut international aid and impose a brutal immigration crackdown. One of Francis’s last acts was to refute the vice-president’s reduction of the Augustinian concept of neighbourly love to a version of “charity begins at home” (though delivering a papal rebuke was not enough to spare him from a visit from Vance the day before he died).
But it would be too easy (and too reminiscent of their own performatively aggressive approach) to simply dismiss the Maga Catholics as theologically beyond the pale. Many Catholics might, for example, legitimately sympathise with Bannon’s analysis of the neglect of working-class interests in 21st-century western liberal democracies. The deepening inequality and corrosive individualism of our times is seriously at odds with Catholic social teaching, which has historically promoted the dignity of labour, social solidarity and a just wage.
The problem is that, in the absence of a leftwing economic populism to challenge the injustices of the globalised era, a rightwing version has filled the gap in the US and beyond. Its form of solidarity is nationalistic and insular, its cultural outlook is xenophobic and its political style is authoritarian and deliberately confrontational. The Maga critique of “globalism” is not limited to the neoliberal economic world order, also condemned by the last three popes; it extends to a repudiation of the foundational Catholic commitment to universality, expressed through compassion for the stranger and a sense of the world as a shared common home.
Enter Pope Leo. The most geographically diverse conclave in church history was surely aware that in choosing an American to succeed Francis, it was setting up a potential showdown between the Vatican and Trumpian nationalism. The new pope’s choice of name is a sign that he recognises the scale and the novelty of the challenge that the rightwing populist turn represents.
The last Leo, a patrician Italian elected to the papacy in 1878, made it his mission to confront the ruthless laissez-faire economics unleashed by the Industrial Revolution and the emerging Marxist response to its cruelties. In Rerum Novarum, his groundbreaking 1891 papal encyclical, Leo XIII laid out swingeing criticisms of the greed that placed profit before people and allowed extreme divides in wealth to undermine the common good. At the same time, in terms that were to prove tragically prescient, he identified in early communist movements a dangerous idolatry of the state and a lack of respect for individual autonomy and rights.
Last weekend, before his first mass in St Peter’s Square, Leo XIV explicitly set himself the task of following in his 19th-century predecessor’s footsteps. That would mean, he told a Rome conference, addressing “the dramatic nature of our own age, marked by wars, climate change, growing inequalities, forced and contested migration, stigmatised poverty, disruptive technological innovations, job insecurity and precarious labour rights”.
The daunting length of that list, and the interlocking, global nature of its crises, should be viewed as an early critique of the Maga worldview. In Leo XIII’s day, the burgeoning Marxist movement incubated a totalitarian strain that would go viral in the 20th century. The success of Trumpian nationalism is also in part a response to the depredations of capitalism, this time in the context of globalisation. But its authoritarian evangelists have hijacked the working-class cause to inflict new injustices on migrant “invaders” and have lost sight of the need for global cooperation to prevent an environmental catastrophe that threatens the poor most of all. The strategy has proved electorally astute. But as Leo will surely make clear, it has nothing to do with Catholicism.
In a column published at the weekend, the American Catholic commentator Sohrab Ahmari referenced a sermon by Leo from last year, in which the future pope acknowledged that the issue of migration “is a huge problem, and it’s a problem worldwide” that needed to be solved. This recognition, Ahmari suggested, could at least open up the possibility of fruitful future dialogue with the Maga Catholics in and around the White House.
He failed, however, to quote the sermon’s next passage: “Every one of us, whether we were born in the United States of America or on the North Pole, we are all given the gift of being created in the image and likeness of God, and the day we forget that is the day we forget who we are.” Words for Vance and Rubio, who met Leo after Sunday’s inaugural mass in Rome, to ponder.
Israel's Eurovision result prompts questions over voting
Israel's success in the public vote at last weekend's Eurovision Song Contest has prompted calls from a string of countries to examine the results and voting system.
Singer Yuval Raphael came top of the viewer vote on Saturday with her ballad New Day Will Rise, but finished second overall to Austria when jury scores were also taken into account.
Broadcasters in Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Iceland and Finland have since raised concerns or questions about the public vote, with some requesting an audit.
Eurovision organisers the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) said the vote had been independently checked and verified, that they took any concerns seriously.
Israel was ranked joint 14th by the national juries, but shot up the leaderboard thanks to the results of the phone and online vote.
Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom were among the countries whose viewers awarded Israel the maximum 12 points, with Ireland and Finland giving 10.
Irish broadcaster RTE has asked for a full breakdown of the voting from organisers.
That came after Spanish broadcaster RTVE said it would request an investigation of the results and a review of the televoting system.
Viewers can currently vote up to 20 times each by phone, text or app.
Katia Segers, a Flemish MP, said: "A system in which everyone can cast up to 20 votes is a system that encourages manipulation.
"Whether this manipulation occurred in our country and all other participating and non-participating countries must be investigated."
Political tensions
A spokesperson for Flemish public broadcaster VRT said: "We have no indication that the counting of the televotes wasn't carried out correctly, but we are asking for complete transparency on the part of the EBU.
"The question is above all whether the current system guarantees a fair reflection of the opinion of viewers and listeners."
Finland's YLE said: "We will definitely ask the EBU whether it is time to update these rules or at least examine whether the current rules allow for abuses."
On Tuesday, Dutch public broadcasters Avrotros and NPO issued a statement saying the contest was "increasingly influenced by societal and geopolitical tensions".
Israel's involvement "raises the question of whether Eurovision still truly functions as an apolitical, unifying, and cultural event", they said.
In response, the contest's director Martin Green said organisers were "in constant contact with all participating broadcasters" and "take their concerns seriously".
"We can confirm that we have been in touch with several broadcasters since Saturday's Grand Final regarding voting in the competition," he continued.
There will now be a "broad discussion" with participating broadcasters "to reflect and obtain feedback on all aspects of this year's event", he said.
"It is important to emphasise that the voting operation for the Eurovision Song Contest is the most advanced in the world and each country's result is checked and verified by a huge team of people to exclude any suspicious or irregular voting patterns.
"An independent compliance monitor reviews both jury and public vote data to ensure we have a valid result.
"Our voting partner Once has confirmed that a valid vote was recorded in all countries participating in this year's Grand Final and in the Rest of the World."
Eurovision News, external, which is operated by the EBU, said an agency of the Israeli government paid for adverts and used state social media accounts to encourage people to vote for the Israeli entry.
Mr Green said that did not break the rules.
The United States has accepted a 747 jetliner as a gift from the government of Qatar, and the Air Force has now been asked to figure out a way to rapidly upgrade it so it can be put into use as a new Air Force One for President Trump, a Defense Department spokesman confirmed Wednesday.
“The secretary of defense has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar in accordance with all federal rules and regulations,” Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement on Wednesday. “The Department of Defense will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered for an aircraft used to transport the president of the United States.”
The plane, which industry executives estimated is worth about $200 million, will require extensive work before it can be considered secure enough to carry Mr. Trump, Pentagon officials have acknowledged in recent days.
“Any civilian aircraft will take significant modifications to do so,” Troy Meink, the Air Force secretary, said on Tuesday during Senate testimony. “We’re off looking at that right now what it’s going to take for that particular aircraft.”
The plan has drawn concern from members of Congress, who worry that Mr. Trump will pressure the Air Force to do the work so fast that sufficient security measures are not built into the plane, such as missile defense systems or even systems to protect the plane from the electromagnetic effects of a nuclear blast.
“If President Trump insists on converting this plane to a hardened Air Force One before 2029, I worry about the pressures you may be under to cut corners on operational security,” Senator Tammy Duckworth, Democrat of Illinois, said as Mr. Meink was testifying.
The gift also has drawn questions from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, who worry that Qatar may be trying to improperly influence Mr. Trump, or that the plane itself might have listening devices.
Qatar’s prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, on Monday publicly said for the first time that his government had approved turning over the plane as a gift, rejecting the idea of it being an attempt to influence the president.
“We are a country that would like to have strong partnership and strong friendship, and anything that we provide to any country, it’s provided out of respect for this partnership and it’s a two-way relationship,” he said. “It’s mutually beneficial for Qatar and for the United States.”
