Jun. 5, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

Republicans forced the Trump administration to at least temporarily drop its agenda to create an astonishingly corrupt $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund this week. The showdown served as a reminder of how the GOP has the ability to foil President Donald Trump’s plans when it wants to, but rarely chooses to exercise that power. And that’s why our current political crisis can’t solely be laid at the feet of Trump. The feckless party he leads rarely exerts its own agency, and that’s a choice.

Republican senators recently showed Trump that there are limits to their patience with his pet projects. A plan to pass a $72 billion immigration enforcement funding bill right before Memorial Day weekend was derailed after, as MS NOW reported“several Senate Republicans spoke out” against the anti-weaponization fund and “appeared ready to support Democratic-led amendments to block the proposal.”

Things got heated. Reuters reported that “nearly half” of the GOP Senate majority “balked at the issue during a heated two-hour meeting with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, afterward described it on his podcast as “one of the roughest meetings I’ve seen in my entire time in the Senate.”

These objections forced Senate Republican leaders to pull the vote and send lawmakers home early for a recess. The message was clear: Rank-and-file senate Republicans can reject Trump’s demands by refusing to pass the legislation he wants to pass. And the Trump administration appeared to receive that message. On Tuesday, Blanche said“We’re not moving forward with the fund. Period.” That came a day after the Justice Department announced it would comply with a court ruling temporarily blocking the fund.

It’s not hard to see why lawmakers from a party would push back against a fund whose sole discernible function would be to reward the president’s friends and political allies — potentially including those who tried to violently overthrow the government. Which raises the question, why doesn’t the GOP act like this more often?

Trump is wildly unpopularhostile to addressing the country’s affordability crisis, mired in a war that he began on a whim, and fixated on turning Washington into an autocrats’ paradise. Even if I were a sincere MAGA ideologue, I would be angry that my egoistic party leader was clearly making policy decisions that hurt voters and the party’s chances in the coming midterm elections.

Sure, Trump’s track record of successfully backing primary challengers against the handful of lawmakers who dare to criticize him is a real source of intimidation. And he is unrivaled by any other figure in the party in terms of his grip on the base. But ultimately, his domination of the party can be resolved by collective action: If enough of the party rallies together and credibly threatens to freeze his agenda, as they just did, they can force him to retreat; Trump can’t launch a primary against his entire party. Refusing to fund Trump’s policy agenda would be a way for the GOP to push back against his authoritarian power grabs, dismantling of federal agencies, tariff extremism and casual “excursions” into other countries.

Yet on Thursday, Senate Republicans showed they’re still capable of failing a test they previously proved they can pass, rejecting multiple efforts to formally kill Trump’s weaponization fund effort. (Trump hasn’t ruled out the possibility of reviving it, but Republicans balked at the chance to ensure he cannot.)

Republican lawmakers aren’t held hostage by Trump’s power. They choose to enable it by refusing to take a stand collectively. Whether they’ve come to this position through approval of his behavior or acclimating to it, their choice shows they are full participants in American decline.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

Jun. 5, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” goes the old saying. In the case of the Trump administration, the standard is not so much “good” as “barely competent.”

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump appointed Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence. Two days later he told reporters that Pulte’s appointment is “not going to be permanent” and he will “just take it over a little while.” That is cold comfort, given the position’s responsibilities.

Pulte was – and remains – the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, hardly the background one would expect for the leader of America’s 18 intelligence agencies. That’s particularly true during a time when America is at war with Iran, a hostile foreign adversary whom the US government considers a state sponsor of terrorism.

I was serving as a federal national security prosecutor when Congress created the position of director of national intelligence following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The goal was to help members of the intelligence community “connect the dots.” Congress passed theIntelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004 to break down intelligence community silos and more effectively facilitate information sharing. The provision creating “a Director of National Intelligence” included the legal requirement that he or she “have extensive national security expertise.”

Pulte replaces Tulsi Gabbardwho resigned from the post last month amid disagreements over the threat posed by Iran. Gabbard’s resume was thin, but at least she had experience in the military and in Congress. Pulte appears to lack any national security expertise at all. In fact, his only apparent qualification is unflinching loyalty to the president and an eagerness to weaponize the government against Trump’s perceived foes. After all, it was Pulte who has made accusations of mortgage fraud against some of Trump’s perceived enemies, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook and Senator Adam Schiff. Pulte also called for the removal of Jerome Powell as chair of the Federal Reserve, supporting Trump’s efforts to pressure Powell to lower interest rates.

There’s a reason Congress required the DNI to have national security experience. The director of national intelligence oversees the nation’s collection, analysis, and dissemination of information relating to terrorist plots, cyber attacks, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and malign foreign influence, an incredibly sensitive portfolio. The job’s responsibilities including conducting the president’s daily brief, the meeting at which a president is advised each morning of overnight developments and the most urgent threats to American interests.

Why would a president want to fill such a sensitive and important position with someone who lacks any bona fide credentials? Perhaps the appointment reflects what historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat calls “engineered incompetence.” When a leader appoints an individual to an office that is above their station, the official becomes beholden to the leader, who, in turn, gains absolute control. Knowing they are in over their head, the official is less likely to assert independent judgment or to object when the leader acts in his self-interest instead of the public good.

Engineered incompetence explains how a Fox News host gets appointed Secretary of Defense and promptly shares sensitive attack plans over a Signal chat. When subservience is favored over expertise, the leader gains power, but institutions become less effective, to the detriment of the people. Russian President Vladimir Putin is believed to have miscalculated a quick victory in his war with Ukraine because of the overly optimistic assessments of his advisers, who tell Putin only what he wants to hear. Four years later, the war rages on.  After the way Gabbard was isolated, don’t expect Pulte to disagree with Trump over the threat posed by Iran, no matter the stakes.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, Pulte can serve in an acting capacity for up to 210 days without Senate confirmation. Democrats in Congress warn they will block the extension of the government’s warrantless surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unless Pulte’s appointment is reversed. Even some Republicans have denounced the appointment. “We don’t need a weaponized DNI.,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune.  “We need professionals there.”

Effective leaders value candid advice, even when it means hearing things that conflict with their policy preferences. A leader who ignores unpleasant news is one who is unprepared to make clear-eyed choices on behalf of the people he was elected to serve. With a loyalist like Pulte leading the president’s daily intelligence brief, the engineered incompetence itself poses a grave risk to our national security.

Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst.

Jun. 5, 2026, 5:38 AM EDT

After a marathon session of votes Thursday and Friday, senators passed a roughly $70 billion reconciliation bill funding immigration enforcement, as more moderate Republicans abandoned efforts to constrain President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion settlement fund — and a host of other controversies — and advanced the legislation without imposing any new restrictions on the president.

After more than 18 hours of voting, party loyalty ultimately prevailed. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., successfully navigated a series of politically fraught amendments that could have forced Republicans into direct confrontations with Trump.

At 4:52 a.m., senators voted 52-47 to pass the bill, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as the lone Republican to oppose the final measure.

The legislation now goes to the House, where it faces further drama. GOP leaders initially planned to vote Friday in order to send the measure to Trump’s desk before the weekend. But facing potential attendance problems, House Republicans canceled Friday votes and are instead eying passage next week.

While some Republican critics of Trump broke with their party on individual amendments — and, in Murkowski’s case, on final passage — there were never enough defections to push Democratic proposals over the finish line. Depending on parliamentary rulings, amendments needed either a simple majority or 60 votes to pass. And amendments that required 60 votes received up to 54 votes in favor, while measures that only required a majority stalled out at 49.

It was either a fortuitous stroke of luck for GOP leaders or an intentional display of bipartisan theater, depending on who you asked.

At one point, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., asked to change a mistaken “nay” vote to a “yea” after it was already clear the outcome wouldn’t change. The switch allowed him to register support for a Democratic proposal barring federal or private funds for Trump’s planned East Wing ballroom. The Senate agreed unanimously, nudging support from 52 senators to 53 — still well short of the 60 votes required.

Cassidy was the most persistent Republican holdout. About 17 hours into the amendment marathon, he offered a measure to redirect the $1.8 billion settlement fund to law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That measure garnered 52 votes in support, short of the 60 required.

“I was hoping that we could both have money to protect the border, but still do that which I hope to achieve,” Cassidy told reporters midway through the votes, referring to his efforts to block Trump’s $1.8 billion settlement fund.

The bill’s passage highlights a persistent clarity of purpose among Republican lawmakers, despite several weeks of drama.

“We’ve sort of lost sight of our ultimate objective here,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told reporters ahead of the votes on Thursday. “The objective is to get DHS funded, and we’ve had some — some unrelated issues that have been thrust into the process, and they’ve got to be dealt with.”

The biggest point of contention throughout the votes was Trump’s proposed settlement fund, stemming from his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. Democrats and a small group of Republican holdouts argued that Congress should prohibit the fund outright, regardless of acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s promise to abandon it. But the GOP-controlled Senate repeatedly refused to take action.

Senators first rejected a proposal by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to send the bill back to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to block Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund. That measure failed 49-50, short of the majority needed.

After expressing serious concerns about Trump’s settlement fund, Cassidy voted against that amendment and allowed the bill to move forward.

Next, members voted on an amendment from Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., to redirect the funds to anti-fraud enforcement, a proposal that drew complaints from Democrats who viewed it as simply shuffling money around. That measure failed 15-84, well short of the 60 votes necessary.

Cassidy spent hours trying to draft an amendment to address the Trump settlement fund so that it would only need a simple majority. He was ultimately unsuccessful. And when he failed, there were no repercussions for GOP leaders when his amendment suffered the same fate as all the other proposals.

Democrats were able to force votes on a number of hot-button issues.

A proposal by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to bar federal funds for Trump’s East Wing ballroom — and to ban private donations unless authorized by Congress — drew 53 senators in support and 46 opposed, still well short of the 60 votes needed.

The close votes gave vulnerable Republicans and occasional Trump critics an opportunity to distance themselves from the administration without jeopardizing either the immigration funding package or Trump’s support.

The three most vulnerable incumbent Republicans in 2026 — Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Jon Husted, R-Ohio, and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska — all supported Tillis’ unsuccessful amendment to redirect Trump’s settlement money.

Husted, a Trump ally who rarely bucks his party, trailed Democratic former Sen. Sherrod Brown by eight percentage points in a Fox News poll released Wednesday. Husted voted for all three key measures to block Trump’s settlement fund Thursday and Friday.

Mostly, however, the amendment votes gave Democrats an opportunity to force Republicans onto the record. Democrats sought votes to block Bill Pulte from serving as acting director of national intelligence, increase home construction, require unannounced inspections of the Delaney Hall detention facility and prevent settlement-fund payments to Tina Peters, the former Colorado county clerk convicted of leaking voter data.

Republicans also took the opportunity to vote again on the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. The measure failed 48-50, short of the 60 votes required. Collins, Tillis, Murkowski and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., joined Democrats in opposition.

For Democrats, the votes offered fresh material for an argument they have been making for months: that the private reservations Republicans express about Trump rarely translate to action when it counts.

Democrats have repeatedly pointed out that the Republican case against legislatively blocking the $1.8 billion fund — that it’s unnecessary because the Trump administration has already killed it, and that doing so could incur Trump’s veto — is self-violating. (Either the fund is dead and Trump shouldn’t care that Congress statutorily blocks it, or he’s trying to preserve his options as some lawmakers fear.)

But for Republicans, the immigration enforcement money was simply too important. And the amendment votes may have even worked to their advantage, as vulnerable Republicans could display their independence — even if that independence was largely symbolic.

With immigration enforcement funding hanging in the balance, most GOP lawmakers concluded that preserving party unity — and avoiding a direct confrontation with Trump — was more pressing than erecting new guardrails around the president.

The result was a familiar outcome. Republicans aired their concerns, Democrats forced uncomfortable votes, and Trump emerged with the legislative outcome he wanted.

Mychael Schnell and Lillie Boudreaux contributed to this report.

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.