Congress
House rejects effort to force a balanced budget in the US
Lawmakers rejected legislation Wednesday to compel the United States to maintain a balanced budget, a perennial pursuit of fiscal conservatives that stood little chance of becoming the law of the land.
The House voted 211-207 against the resolution that would have launched an effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to bar the federal government from running a deficit. It needed to clear each chamber of Congress by a two-thirds vote, then be ratified by three-fourths of all the states.
But the measure’s consideration had major symbolic meaning for budget hawks like its sponsor, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).
“Many of us have been agitating for years to do a balanced budget amendment and out of the blue, they said, ‘we’re ready to do it,’” Biggs said in an interview Tuesday, referring to House GOP leaders.
“They didn’t ask me to do anything, didn’t offer anything,” he said of whether leaders scheduled the vote in an effort to court Biggs, who has in the past threatened to tank spending bills for where he hasn’t liked the price tag. “Just out of the blue, I got a call.”
A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the timing of the measure’s consideration.
Various balanced budget amendment proposals have been offered more than a hundred times since 1999, but peaked in the 1970s and 1980s. The Pew Research Center found that balancing the budget is the single most popular subject of constitutional amendment proposals since 1999, according to analysis of legislative data from the Library of Congress.
Biggs’ latest resolution stated that “total expenditures for a year shall not exceed the average annual receipts collected in the three prior years,” adjusted for inflation and changes in the population.
It would have made an exception for war, where “specific expenditures in excess of the limit” can be approved by Congress “for any year in which a declaration of war is in effect.” Modern wars after World War II have largely been funded by debt; none of them, including the decades-long Global War on Terror, were never backed up by an official declaration of war.
The Biggs measure also would have instituted a two-thirds majority vote threshold in both chambers as necessary to approve any new tax or increase the tax rate. The GOP megabill passed last summer, which included significant tax cuts, passed the Senate in a simple majority vote through the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process.
Ousted board members of the U.S. Institute of Peace are asking a federal court to block the imminent carving of President Donald Trump’s name on the headquarters of the nonpartisan institution he sought to dismantle shortly after taking office.
Members of the board who were removed by the administration filed an emergency motion Thursday in Washington in a dispute that has echoes of Trump’s effort to place his name on the Kennedy Center.
The motion was filed as an emergency petition, alleging that a contractor has already been selected to carve Trump’s name into the Constitution Avenue headquarters that the administration sought to shutter as part of the Elon Musk-led DOGE effort to shrink the government.
The former board members said in their motion that they had asked Kenneth Jackson, the DOGE official serving as acting president of the USIP, to ensure the carving would not happen as they pursue litigation to preserve an independent nonprofit created by Congress under President Ronald Reagan to provide research and training aimed at promoting democracy around the world.
“The building — which was largely funded by private donations to USIP as a tax exempt nonprofit corporation — is a work of expressive architecture designed to be ‘symbolic of USIP’s’ independent ‘mission,’” the emergency motion said. “Alteration of the design to impose a different message would cause irreparable harm.”
Trump’s name was added to the exterior of the building in December, shortly before the president hosted a signing ceremony at the institute with the presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bolted-on affixture is removable, and is featured next to the institute’s name, which is engraved into the facade.
The institute has been locked in a legal battle with the Trump administration as it hopes to reinstate its former president ousted by Trump last year. In May 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s actions to dismantle the nonprofit was “unlawful” but the ruling was stayed by a federal appeals court panel a month later.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The USIP’s emergency motion comes days after Trump announced the Kennedy Center would be closing following a court ruling that blocked his name from being added to the building. Trump has threatened to tear down the center, and was seen on Wednesday viewing a large printout that appeared to say “Kennedy Center DEMOLISH.” The Kennedy Center, which USIP referred to in its motion, is seen as a bellwether for other institutions that Trump has sought to rebrand in his image.
“Notwithstanding the importance that the President and his supporters place on attaching his name to notable buildings,” the motion said, “Appellants will suffer no harm or prejudice whatsoever if they are precluded from carving the President’s name into the USIP building unless and until this litigation concludes in their favor.”
The Federal Reserve just made congressional Republicans’ lives even harder in the run-up to the November midterm elections. But they’re holding their fire on Fed Chair Kevin Warsh.
The Fed this week hiked interest rates for the first time since Warsh took over as the central bank’s leader. The central bank’s unanimous decision to increase borrowing costs threatens to worsen the growing problems Republicans face around voters’ views of the economy and the high cost of living.
But some GOP lawmakers indicated they were relieved to see Warsh’s willingness to buck President Donald Trump after he faced withering criticism during his confirmation process from Democrats, who said he would do the president’s bidding in the role.
“The Fed has to be independent. They showed that they were independent,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who is up for reelection. “That should give confidence to the markets.”
Republicans’ willingness to give Warsh room — despite its potential political downsides for them — highlights their deference to the new Fed chief.
“It’s not good,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who lost a primary earlier this year to a Trump-backed opponent. “But it’s a fact that they need to get inflation under control. But the timing is not optimal.”
The decision to hike rates comes amid an uneasy dynamic where the Fed is taking action to tamp down rising inflation while Trump wants to see the economy boosted by cheaper borrowing costs. Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are caught between supporting Trump’s economic agenda and voicing confidence in Warsh’s ability to bring inflation under control.
Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a staunch supporter of the president who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, said that while she and Warsh “may have a different opinion on how we achieve a place where ultimately interest rates are low” and that she’d “love to see [lower rates],” she “trust[s] what [Warsh] is doing, and appreciate[s] the independence of the Fed.”
Warsh was tapped by Trump for the job in January with the hope that he would lower rates. However, since he was nominated, the U.S. entered into a conflict with Iran, high tariffs continued and gas prices soared, among other inflation and affordability concerns.
Trump-aligned lawmakers are cautioning against moving too aggressively to increase borrowing costs — but they are doing so gently.
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said in an interview that Warsh is “under a tremendous amount of pressure,” pointing to other Fed officials’ support for a hike.
“I understand the concerns about inflation, but I do think there’s a significant component of inflation that will be addressed as we address the situation in the Middle East,” Hagerty said.
Forty-six members of the Senate Democratic caucus are demanding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provide a detailed accounting of the Iran war’s costs, arguing that the Pentagon has failed to explain how it has spent, and plans to spend, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.
The letter, led by Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, was signed by every member of the Senate Democratic caucus except Sen. John Fetterman. Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who caucus with Democrats, were also included.
The senators asked the Pentagon to provide a breakdown by Sept. 30 of all direct and indirect costs incurred to date in the conflict, as well as a breakdown of the administration’s $67 billion supplemental request. The senators also sought a detailed plan for how $34 billion of leftover funds allocated to the Pentagon in Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill will be spent.
The letter also requests that the department specify which portions of the requested funds are intended to reimburse past expenses, and which are meant for future operations.
“Despite asking for tens of billions of additional taxpayer dollars, you have so far failed to provide basic information on how this money has and will be spent,” the senators wrote. “Congress must have access to this information to carry out our oversight responsibilities. It is the bare minimum that any American would expect in balancing their own household budget.”
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The demand comes as the war enters its seventh month with no agreement to end the conflict. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office said the conflict would reach about $2 billion to $3 billion a month, noting that the first five months cost the U.S. $38 billion — the most comprehensive look at the conflict ahead of the midterm elections.
Fetterman has repeatedly broken with his party over the conflict, supporting President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran in February and voting against a measure seeking to limit Trump’s war powers. His distance from Democrats was underscored last week when he made a surprise video appearance at Trump’s Republican midterm convention in Dallas.
Fetterman’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
- Urgent motion filed to stop carving of Trump’s name into US Institute of Peace building
- ‘We told you so’: Key New York lawmaker calls for more AI rules
- Republicans give Warsh room on interest rates
- US, in controversial deal, agrees to sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia
- Trump floats setting up Army base in Poland
- Senate Democrats press Hegseth for Iran war price tag
- Democratic advisers are warning their candidates not to go too hard at AI
- Thune, Kemp to headline fundraiser for Georgia Senate GOP nominee Mike Collins
- Hakeem Jeffries deflects on plan to address rebel Democrats
- Husted will try to clear House-passed data center ratepayer bill
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words