President Donald Trump has blessed an emerging deal to stave off a partial government shutdown at 12:00 a.m. Saturday, handing Democrats a potential victory in their fight to clamp down on federal immigration agents they say are breaking the law and sewing chaos in American cities.
Senate Republican leaders were circulating the deal among senators, according to two sources familiar with the matter. It provides for the passage of five spending bills covering a full year, and temporarily funds the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks while lawmakers continue negotiating.
If agreed to, the Senate could approve the deal as early as Thursday night. But the compromise would still require passage by the House, meaning there could still be a shutdown, albeit of shorter length.
“Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to get the vast majority of the Government funded until September, while at the same time providing an extension to the Department of Homeland Security (including the very important Coast Guard, which we are expanding and rebuilding like never before). Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats will give a very much needed Bipartisan “YES” Vote,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Earlier Thursday, senators failed to clear a procedural hurdle for a vote to pass all six funding bills. But negotiations continued between Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
Schumer had urged Republicans to pass five of the six bills, while keeping negotiations going on policy changes at federal immigration agencies. Some Republicans, feeling pressure after federal officers shot and killed 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Prettisaid it would be a good idea to decouple Homeland Security talks from the rest of the funding package. In addition to DHS, the larger package supported the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury and others.
Schumer and Democrats had demanded serious changes to how Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducts itself. ICE is part of DHS, along with the Customs and Border Protection agency. Agents from those entities were responsible for fatal shootings of Renee Good and Prettyboth American citizens, this month in Minnesota.
“What ICE is doing outside the law is state-sanctioned thuggery, and it must stop,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer. “And Congress has the authority and the moral obligation to act.”
Senate Democrats have formally laid out three demands they must receive in exchange for their vote on permanent DHS funding: End roving patrols and tighten rules about the use of warrants, create a uniform code of conduct for federal agents, and implement a “masks off, body cameras on” policy, as Schumer put it.
“This is a moment of truth for the United States of America,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
“What ICE is doing outside the law is state-sanctioned thuggery, and it must stop,” he continued. “And Congress has the authority and the moral obligation to act.”
There is evidence that the public is souring on ICE and Trump’s immigration tactics, and the president is not only negotiating with Democrats to forestall a shutdown – something he did not do during the last one — but has sought to de-escalate the rhetoric in Minnesota.
To some, like Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., that’s a sign of the politics underpinning the issue.
“Even this White House understands public sentiment, that the public in this country is overwhelmingly against ICE being unleashed on the American public,” Warner told MS NOW.
As with most legislative items over the last year, Senate Republicans have suggested they’ll follow Trump’s lead.
“My hope and expectation is that the White House and the Senate Democrats, they work this out and they’ll be able to produce the votes that are necessary to pass,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters before the vote.
Other key Republicans held out hope for a deal. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, told MS NOW that she wants “a bipartisan, bicameral solution.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said passing five of the six bills would be a good outcome.
“We should take a win,” Tillis said. “If we’re going to be able to get four or five bills done through regular order, I mean, that’s a great win for Susan Collins. That stuff doesn’t happen around here very often.”
The uneven pace of negotiations throughout this week has almost guaranteed at least a short, partial shutdown for many agencies. With only a day and a half before the deadline, senators would need unanimous agreement in order to hold a passage vote in time. And if senators make any changes to the six-bill package — including splitting off one of the bills — the House would have to approve those changes. House members are on recess and don’t plan to return until Monday, sources have told MS NOW.
Senators maintained hope that the talks between Trump and Schumer could yield a deal.
“I think there’s a path forward with — probably not no chance of a shutdown, but a very limited shutdown, just in terms of getting the House back and accepting any modifications that might be made in the six-bill package,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., told reporters on Wednesday.
Earlier in the day, a number of key hurdles remained.
First, Democrats still have to recruit at least 13 Republicans to join them in voting to strip the DHS funding bill from the package to clear the 60-vote threshold, a high bar they failed to scale on Thursday.
At least five Republicans — Rounds and Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Steve Daines of Montana and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia — had publicly said they’d support such an effort. Kennedy, however, insists there are more quietly waiting in the wings.
“It’s a better alternative than shutting down the government,” Daines said Thursday.
Then the parties would have to agree on the length for a stopgap bill to keep DHS funded. Democrats pushed for a short timespan to keep the pressure on GOP lawmakers. Republicans, meanwhile, wanted a lengthier measure to allow time for substantive talks.
“We’d prefer longer to actually have time to work through this,” a GOP aide told MS NOW. “Short-term doesn’t provide that much runway.”
Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., said the ultimate length will be up to Schumer and Trump.
Finally, there’s toughest lift of all: Democrats and Republicans will have to negotiate a new DHS funding bill palatable to both parties, tackling an issue that has historically been one of the most difficult on which to find a bipartisan consensus.
Thune insists those policy changes won’t be written into the current, six-bill package. But splitting off DHS funds from the other bills could allow negotiations to continue without threatening a lengthy shutdown for roughly 80% of the federal government.
“That’s not going to happen in this bill,” Thune said of the Democrats’ policy proposals. “But there are — I mean, there’s a path to consider some of those things and negotiate that out between Republicans, Democrats, House, Senate and White House.”
“But that’s not going to happen in these bills,” he said.
Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Arizona State University.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
Ali Vitali is MS NOW’s senior congressional correspondent and the host of “Way Too Early.” She is the author of “Electable: Why America Hasn’t Put a Woman in the White House … Yet.”
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.
Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuitsboth filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, saying in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order seeking to create a federal list of eligible voters and using the U.S. Postal Service to determine who can receive a mail ballot are “legally void” because they “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”
It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.
Order targeted mail voting, administration likely to appeal
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose state was among the plaintiffs, celebrated the court’s decision.
“Millions of independents, Republicans and Democrats across Arizona have voted by mail for decades,” she said in a statement, noting that nearly 80% of ballots in the state are cast by that method.
Mayes, a Democrat, singled out military families, voters in the state’s rural expanses and Native Americans who cast ballots from tribal lands.
“Donald Trump’s executive order targeted all of these voters,” she said. “But today, the courts affirmed what the Constitution makes clear: States run their elections, not the President.”
AP AUDIO: Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list
AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports President Trump has suffered a legal setback for a second straight day in his bid to get oversight of the nation’s elections.
The White House stood by Trump’s executive order and indicated the administration would appeal the ruling. The order, said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, “lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation.”
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order, argued that the motions were premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.
Executive order sought to give Postal Service a central role in elections
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government — through the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration — create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list.
Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.
The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
Postal Service workers have pushed back against the order, saying they are not equipped to determine who is eligible to vote in each state. After Trump issued his order last spring, the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association said forcing its members into such a role “risks politicizing one of the nation’s most trusted public institutions.”
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat whose state was among the plaintiffs, said the executive order illustrated how Trump was attempting to “abuse power in previously unthinkable ways” to interfere in elections.
She said it “strains credulity” to think the U.S. Postal Service could set up a workable system for pre-screening individual voters to determine whether they would be allowed to vote by mail, adding that it would be “a shocking violation of American constitutional rights.”
The Postal Service did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.
Trump’s second election executive order faces multiple legal challenges
The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.
The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.
The other lawsuit filed in Talwani’s court was by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, which have sought a preliminary injunction against the executive order.
In yet another lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, which have appealed.
California voters will consider a controversial proposal in November to temporarily raise taxes on billionaires after the labor union backing the measure announced Thursday it would forge ahead despite pressure from critics to withdraw it.
The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to fund the state’s Medicaid system after federal cuts.
“I am all in on this,” union President Dave Regan said on a Zoom call, adding that opponents of the proposal are “totally out of touch.”
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and many traditional allies of the union oppose the measure. They argue it is a temporary fix for an ongoing problem and that it would push the ultrawealthy to leave the state, taking the money they would contribute in income taxes with them. Newsom, who is considering a presidential run as he prepares to leave office in January, has generally opposed tax increases during his time as governor.
A coalition of healthcare, education and housing groups — including the California Medical Association and California School Boards Association — banded together last week to fight the tax.
“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the coalition said in a statement.
Brian Brokaw, a Newsom political adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said it would “make California’s biggest challenges worse.”
“Driving away the state’s sustainable tax base for a one-time grab is bad policy and an even worse deal for 40 million Californians who will be left holding the bag,” he said in a statement.
Under the proposal, the state would spend the money generated from the tax over multiple years. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the proposal would generate tens of billions of dollars in the first few years, but that income tax revenues would subsequently decline by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Many of the Silicon Valley tech moguls who oppose the measure have already moved their assets to other states or threatened to do so to avoid the possible tax. They have also spent millions to try to defeat it.
Since the proposal was announced in October, Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated $82 million to a political committee called Building a Better California that backs a variety of initiatives designed to blunt the billionaire tax proposal. It has raised more than $118 million, counting Brin’s contributions, from fewer than a dozen donors.
The union offered to scale back its proposal last week, asking Newsom to back a 2% tax on billionaires instead. But the governor’s office said the lower rate didn’t change his stance.
The proposed tax may have piqued the interest of many Democrats because it comes at a time when they are particularly concerned about affordability, income inequality and federal cutbacks to government programs, said Martin Gilens, a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“There’s kind of a perfect storm that sort of bolsters preexisting inclinations to be sympathetic to the idea of raising taxes on the well-to-do,” he said.
But there’s a catch. Support for ballot initiatives often declines as the election nears, and if the measure passes, it’s likely to face legal challenges, Gilens said.
Since taking office one week ago, Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, has busied himself on social media posting flattering photos of President Donald Trump, trivia about a former counterintelligence agent and praising his current staff.
What the Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience has not done is address the public about his plans, or calm the unease and confusion inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is being described by top officials as “chaotic” amid firings of senior personnel with threats of more to come.
One image posted to the official X account of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, apparently artificial intelligence-generated, features Trump raising a clenched fist in the air with two B-2 stealth bombers in the sky behind him. Another is an image of the president, his fist clenched, glowering as he stands behind the Oval Office’s Resolute Desk.
In another post, Pulte, who was expected to gut the workforce of the National Counterterrorism Center, instead declared the staff there “true professionals and American patriots” after he said he spent time with them, adding “it is a privilege to work beside them.”
And in an apparent attempt at levity, Pulte reposted a message reminding Americans that Tuesday was “National Typewriter Day” and informing them of the role that a former Army counterintelligence agent played.
“Fun CI fact,” the post reads. “Former Army CI Special Agent Leroy Anderson composed ‘The Typewriter’ on October 9, 1950.”
But Pulte’s arrival has sparked anxiety and fear among the office’s workforce, three former U.S. intelligence officials told MS NOW, granted anonymity to address a sensitive topic.
They said that a half dozen political appointees were removed from their posts and several dozen staffers were sent back to their home intelligence agencies. Beyond that, little else is known about Pulte’s plans.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MS NOW that his requests for more information from the office, known by the acronym ODNI, have been rebuffed.
“I’ve been calling over there all day and can’t get my calls returned,” said Himes.
He later said, “I spoke directly to their office of congressional affairs. They said they had nothing for me.”
“It seems like it’s totally chaotic at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on a podcast Wednesday. “There was word that there was going to be firings and then he said he changed his mind. We don’t know.”
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA official and now an MS NOW contributor, said that staff in the intelligence community do not know what to think.
“Everyone is in the same boat and unsure of what is going on,” he said. “That said, there is no love lost for the DNI, as many believe that there is redundancy that does need to be cut.”
The other former U.S. intelligence officials said they agree that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in need of reform. The agency was created after a lack of information sharing among U.S. intelligence agencies played a role in the failure to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ODNI’s mission is to ensure that the country’s now 18 different intelligence agencies share information with one another.
But the former intelligence officials said Pulte is patently unqualified to design or carry out those reforms.
“As with many things Trump alights upon, there is a sliver of truth here but he goes about addressing it in the worst possible way,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official told MS NOW, granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation. “But mass firings without any kind of sense of what you are trying to accomplish is addressing it in the most ham-handed way.”
That former official, as well as Warner and Himes, have said they fear that Pulte’s mission is to use his position as the nation’s top intelligence official to help Trump interfere in the midterm elections in November.
Pulte, who simultaneously serves as the Trump administration’s top federal housing official as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, used government mortgage information to file several criminal referrals against Democrats whom Trump considered enemies, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. None of Pulte’s referrals have resulted in criminal convictions.
One fear expressed by Warner and some former intelligence officials is that Pulte may try to falsely claim that his office has found evidence that foreign governments are secretly funding Democratic candidates.
One way he could do that, they say, is by falsely claiming foreign actors have hacked U.S. voting machines and altered vote totals in favor of Democrats. And Pulte and FBI agents could seize voting machines, ballots and election records in November — as Gabbard did in Fulton County, Georgia, last year at Trump’s behest — as part of voter fraud investigations that please the president.
“I have to tell you, I was extraordinarily concerned about the former director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, interfering in our election,” Warner told NPR earlier this month. “The concerns I had with Tulsi Gabbard now, upon reflection, look small versus the concerns I have with Bill Pulte.”
David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.
Politics1 year ago
The Dictatorship1 year ago
Politics1 year ago
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years ago
The Dictatorship1 year ago
Politics1 year ago
The Dictatorship10 months ago