July, 16 2019, 12:00am EDT

Dangerous Heat to Soar Across Entire US "Breaking" National Weather Service Heat Index Scale, Posing Unprecedented Health Risks
Some Areas to Endure Four Months a Year When “Feels Like” Temperature Exceeds 105 Degrees Fahrenheit
WASHINGTON
Increases in potentially lethal heat driven by climate change will affect every state in the contiguous U.S. in the decades ahead, according to a new report and accompanying peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Communications, both by the Union of Concerned Scientists, released today. Few places would be unaffected by extreme heat conditions by midcentury and only a few mountainous regions would remain extreme heat refuges by the century's end.
Without global action to reduce heat-trapping emissions, the number of days per year when the heat index--or "feels like" temperature--exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit would more than double from historical levels to an average of 36 across the country by midcentury and increase four-fold to an average of 54 by late century. The average number of days per year nationwide with a heat index above 105 degrees Fahrenheit would more than quadruple to 24 by midcentury and increase eight-fold to 40 by late century.
"Our analysis shows a hotter future that's hard to imagine today," said Kristina Dahl, senior climate scientist at UCS and co-author of the report "Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot Days." "Nearly everywhere, people will experience more days of dangerous heat even in the next few decades. By the end of the century, with no action to reduce global emissions, parts of Florida and Texas would experience the equivalent of at least five months per year on average when the 'feels like' temperature exceeds 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with most of these days even surpassing 105 degrees. On some days, conditions would be so extreme that they exceed the upper limit of the National Weather Service heat-index scale and a heat index would be incalculable. Such conditions could pose unprecedented health risks."
In the U.S., these "off-the-charts" days now occur only in the Sonoran Desert--located on the border of southern California and Arizona--where historically fewer than 2,000 residents have been exposed to the equivalent of a week or more of these conditions per year on average. By midcentury, these "off-the-charts" conditions would extend to other parts of the country, and areas currently home to more than 6 million people would be subjected to them for the equivalent of a week or more per year on average. By late century this would increase to areas where more than 118 million people--over one-third of the U.S. population--live.
"We have little to no experience with 'off-the-charts' heat in the U.S.," said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, lead climate analyst at UCS and report co-author. "These conditions occur at or above a heat index of 127 degrees, depending on temperature and humidity. Exposure to conditions in that range makes it difficult for human bodies to cool themselves and could be deadly."
Overall, the study showed that the Southeast and Southern Great Plains would bear the brunt of the extreme heat. With no action to reduce emissions, areas of states in these regions would experience the equivalent of three months per year on average by midcentury that feel hotter than 105 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly as hot as 115 degrees, 125 degrees, or worse. In this time frame, parts of those regions and the Midwest would experience "off-the-charts" heat days for the first time. By late century, communities in each state in the contiguous U.S. would experience days with a heat index exceeding 105 degrees Fahrenheit, with nearly one-third of the population enduring the equivalent of two months of such heat. Similarly, "off-the-charts" heat days would spread to communities in 47 states.
In addition, the analysis found that by midcentury with no reduction in global emissions:
- Four hundred and one sizeable U.S. cities--places with more than 50,000 residents--would experience the equivalent of a month or more on average per year when the heat index exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit compared to 239 cities historically.
- Two hundred fifty-one of those cities would experience the equivalent of a month or more per year on average with a heat index surpassing 100 degrees Fahrenheit compared to just 29 historically.
- One hundred and fifty-two cities, and more than 90 million people nationwide, would experience a heat index over 105 degrees Fahrenheit for the equivalent of a month or more per year on average. Only three sizeable cities--Yuma, Ariz. and El Centro and Indio, Calif.--and fewer than 1 million people nationwide routinely experience such conditions today.
- More than 6 million people would experience "off-the-charts" heat days for the equivalent of a week or more per year on average.
According to the analysis, by late century with no reduction in global emissions:
- Nearly all sizeable cities in the country--469 out of 481--would endure the equivalent of a month or more per year on average when the heat index exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Of those, 389 cities would experience the equivalent of a month or more per year with a heat index above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
- About 300 cities--and more than 180 million people nationwide--would experience the equivalent of a month or more per year on average with a heat index exceeding 105 degrees Fahrenheit.
- Nearly two-thirds of the country by area would endure "off-the-charts" heat days at least once a year on average, with nearly 120 million people--more than one-third of the contiguous U.S. population--experiencing the equivalent of a week or more per year on average of these unprecedented conditions.
- Cities experiencing the most "off-the-charts" heat days would be: Yuma, Ariz. (46); El Centro-Calexico, Calif. (45); Casa Grande, Ariz. (40); Avondale-Goodyear, Ariz. (38); Indio-Cathedral City; Calif. (37); Phoenix-Mesa, Ariz. (32); Brownsville, Texas (31); Lake Jackson-Angleton, Texas (27); Lake Havasu City, Ariz. (26); Alexandria, La. (24); Conroe-The Woodlands, Texas (24); Harlingen, Texas (24); and Victoria, Texas (24).
- If the goal of the Paris Agreement is met and future global average warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius, by late century the United States would see half the number of days per year with a heat index above 105 degrees Fahrenheit, on average, and almost 115 million fewer people would experience the equivalent of a week or more of "off-the-charts" heat days.
The analysis calculated the frequency of days with heat index thresholds above 90 degrees Fahrenheit--the point at which outdoor workers generally become susceptible to heat-related illness--as well as above 100 and 105 degrees Fahrenheit, when the National Weather Service (NWS) generally recommends issuing heat advisories and excessive heat warnings, respectively. The number of high heat-index days was calculated by averaging projections from 18 high-resolution climate models between April and October. The report looked at these conditions for three possible futures. The "no action scenario" assumes carbon emissions continue to rise and the global average temperature increases nearly 4.3 degrees Celsius (about 8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by century's end. The "slow action scenario" assumes carbon emissions start declining at midcentury and the global average temperature rises 2.4 degrees Celsius (4.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by century's end. In the "rapid action scenario," global average warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)--in line with the Paris Agreement. All population data presented here, including for future projections, is based on the most recent U.S. Census conducted in 2010 and does not account for population growth or changes in distribution.
"The rise in days with extreme heat will change life as we know it nationwide, but with significant regional differences," said Rachel Licker, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "For example, in some regions currently unaccustomed to extreme heat--those such as the upper Midwest, Northeast and Northwest--the ability of people and infrastructure to cope with it is woefully inadequate. At the same time, people in states already experiencing extreme heat--including in the Southeast, Southern Great Plains and Southwest--have not seen heat like this. By late century, they may have to significantly alter ways of life to deal with the equivalent of up to five months a year with a heat index above--often way above--105 degrees. We don't know what people would be able and willing to endure, but such heat could certainly drive large-scale relocation of residents toward cooler regions."
The report notes that the rising heat could particularly affect outdoor workers and thus sectors depending on their labor.
"By the end of the century, on most days between April and October, construction workers in parts of Florida won't be able to safely work outside during the day because the heat index would exceed 100 degrees," said Dahl. "Likewise, agricultural centers such as Illinois and California's Central Valley could struggle to keep farm workers safe, with the heat index exceeding 90 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively, for the equivalent of about three months a year. If farm workers are unable to work as a result of extreme heat, this could affect the productivity of farming enterprises."
People exposed to the same heat event can have different levels of heat-related health risk, with children, elderly adults, people with special needs, and outdoor workers having higher risks of heat-related illness and death. City-dwellers contend with the urban heat island effect--a phenomenonwhere where heat-retaining materials and surfaces drive up temperatures, particularly at night--which can increase rates of heat-related illness. Meanwhile, residents of some rural areas may face higher risk of heat-related hospitalization and death given their distance from cooling centers and medical facilities.
"Low-income communities, communities of color and other vulnerable populations may be particularly at risk when exposed to extreme heat," said Juan Declet-Barreto, climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "Longstanding social and economic inequities have led to these communities often having more limited access to transportation, cooling centers, and health care, and they may lack air conditioning, or the financial resources to run it."
The report clearly shows how actions taken, or not taken, within the next few years to reduce emissions will help determine how hot and humid our future becomes. The longer the U.S. and other countries wait to drastically reduce emissions, the less feasible it will be to realize the "rapid action scenario" analyzed.
"The best ways to avoid the worst impacts of an overheated future are to enact policies that rapidly reduce global warming emissions and to help communities prepare for the extreme heat that is already inevitable," said Astrid Caldas, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. "Extreme heat is one of the climate change impacts most responsive to emissions reductions, making it possible to limit how extreme our hotter future becomes for today's children."
Governors and state legislators have begun moving toward 100 percent clean energy and Congress is considering a range of energy and climate policies--including renewable energy standards, climate resilient infrastructure and innovation incentives, which may see bipartisan support--that could help keep the worst at bay.
"To ensure a safe future, elected officials urgently need to transform our existing climate and energy policies," said Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and policy director at UCS and report co-author. "Economists have advised putting a price on carbon emissions to properly account for damages from the fossil-fuel-based economy and signal intentions to protect the environment."
The report includes a range of preparedness recommendations for governments, including: investing in heat-resilient infrastructure; creating heat adaptation and emergency response plans; expanding funding for programs to provide cooling assistance to low- and fixed-income households; directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to set up protective occupational standards for workers during extreme heat; requiring utilities to keep power on for residents during extreme heat events; and investing in research, data tools and public communication to better predict extreme heat and keep people safe.
To view the report PDF, click here.
Spreadsheets with our data on extreme heat are available and can be sorted by city, by county, by state, by region and by population.
To get the results for your city or county by using our interactive widget, click here.
To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The map allows you to learn more about extreme heat in specific counties. When you zoom in, the maps become more detailed.
For all other materials, including regional press releases, our methodology document and Spanish-language materials, click here.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Urges Gaza Cease-Fire Deal—And End to Netanyahu Corruption Trial in Israel
The U.S. president's comments came as Israel's military continued to kill Palestinians and order evacuations in the besieged enclave.
Jun 29, 2025
"MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!" U.S. President Donald Trump said on social media early Sunday, as Israeli forces—armed with billions of dollars in military support from the United States—continued their nearly 21-month annihilation of the Palestinian territory.
Trump's Truth Social post came after he suggested on Friday that there could be a cease-fire deal between the Israeli government and Hamas, a Palestinian militant group that governed Gaza for nearly two decades and led the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, "within the next week."
As The Associated Pressreported Sunday:
Ron Dermer, a top adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was set to travel to Washington this week for talks on a cease-fire, an Israeli official said, and plans were being made for Netanyahu to travel there in the coming weeks, a sign there may be movement on a deal.
Netanyahu was meeting with his Security Cabinet on Sunday evening, the official said on condition of anonymity to discuss plans that hadn't been finalized.
Trump's post calling for a deal also came just hours after he took to his Truth Social network to criticize the corruption trial that Netanyahu faces in Israel. Some critics of the prime minister have accused him of continuing the assault on Gaza to avoid his legal issues at home.
Saturday evening, Trump wrote:
It is terrible what they are doing in Israel to Bibi Netanyahu. He is a War Hero, and a Prime Minister who did a fabulous job working with the United States to bring Great Success in getting rid of the dangerous Nuclear threat in Iran. Importantly, he is right now in the process of negotiating a Deal with Hamas, which will include getting the Hostages back. How is it possible that the Prime Minister of Israel can be forced to sit in a Courtroom all day long, over NOTHING (Cigars, Bugs Bunny Doll, etc.). It is a POLITICAL WITCH HUNT, very similar to the Witch Hunt that I was forced to endure. This travesty of “Justice” will interfere with both Iran and Hamas negotiations. In other words, it is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu. The United States of America spends Billions of Dollar a year, far more than on any other Nation, protecting and supporting Israel. We are not going to stand for this. We just had a Great Victory with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu at the helm—And this greatly tarnishes our Victory. LET BIBI GO, HE’S GOT A BIG JOB TO DO!
Then, Reutersrevealed Sunday that the Jerusalem District Court canceled this week's hearings for Netanyahu's trial, "accepting a request the Israeli leader made citing classified diplomatic and security grounds."
The news agency noted that "it was unclear whether a social media post by... Trump influenced the court's decision."
Meanwhile, Netanyahu's military kept slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza this weekend. In addition to the warrant for the prime minister issued last year by the International Criminal Court—which sparked retaliation from Trump—Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
Gaza health officials said that as of midday Sunday, Israeli attacks had killed at least 86 people in the previous 24 hours, and put the death toll since October 2023 at 56,500, with 133,419 others wounded.
With thousands more Palestinians missing in the destroyed enclave, researchers have warned that the true toll could be far higher, particularly when accounting for deaths from causes such as disease, hunger, and exposure to cold temperatures.
The Israeli military on Sunday issued evacuation orders for neighborhoods in Gaza City and other northern areas of the strip.
According to the BBC:
Medics said five people were killed in an Israeli airstrike on a tent housing displaced people in al-Mawasi near the southern city of Khan Younis—an area where people in the north had been told to evacuate to.
Five members of the Maarouf family, including three children, were killed.
"They bombed us while we were sleeping on the ground," their mother Iman Abu Maarouf said. "We didn't do anything wrong. My children were killed, and the rest are in intensive care."
Israel's attacks have crippled Gaza's healthcare system, and its blockade has limited the flow of essentials, from medical supplies to food. Israeli troops have also killed Palestinians seeking aid from the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
The Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)—or Doctors Without Borders—emergency coordinator in Gaza, Aitor Zabalgogeazkoa, excoriated the GHF operation and Israeli forces in a Friday statement.
"The four distribution sites, all located in areas under the full control of Israeli forces after people had been forcibly displaced from there, are the size of football fields surrounded by watch points, mounds of earth, and barbed wire. The fenced entrance gives only one access point in or out," he said. "GHF workers drop the pallets and the boxes of food and open the fences, allowing thousands in all at once to fight down to the last grain of rice."
"If people arrive early and approach the checkpoints, they get shot. If they arrive on time, but there is an overflow and they jump over the mounds and the wires, they get shot," Zabalgogeazkoa continued. "If they arrive late, they shouldn't be there because it is an 'evacuated zone,' they get shot."
Sharing the statement on social media Sunday, MSF said: "This is not humanitarian aid. It is slaughter."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Public Land Sale Out, But Senate GOP Megabill Still Attacks Planet
"It's a job killer, a planet killer, and an economy killer," Sen. Ed Markey said of Republicans' so-called Big Beautiful Bill.
Jun 29, 2025
While welcoming that U.S. Senate Republicans are removing a provision that would have forced the sale of public lands from their budget reconciliation package, Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists this weekend condemned other attacks on the planet that are part of the megabill making its way through the upper chamber.
After Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough blocked Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) initial public land sale policy earlier this week, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources chair tried to sneak in an amended version late Friday. However, as the chamber's Republicans scrambled to generate enough support for a procedural vote Saturday night, Lee announced the withdrawal of his provision from the package.
"This is a momentous win for conservation and a powerful reminder that Americans deeply value our public lands and waters. That was made crystal clear by the remarkable, bipartisan outcry opposing the liquidation of our natural heritage," said Tom Kiernan, president and CEO of American Rivers. "Future generations should be able to continue to use these lands for fishing, rafting, hiking, and swimming, and to enjoy the clean water that begins in these priceless places. It is our responsibility to protect that legacy."
Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said that "from the moment Mike Lee first introduced this proposal, Americans across the political spectrum have made it clear they oppose selling off the natural heritage of our public lands to fund tax cuts for billionaires—not now, not ever. This is a victory for everyone who hikes, hunts, explores, and cherishes these places, but it's not the end of the threats to our public lands."
U.S. President Donald Trump "and his allies in Congress have made it clear they will use every tool at their disposal to give away our public lands to billionaires and corporate polluters, whether it's Mike Lee's fire sale, leasing them to Big Oil CEOs for pennies on the dollar, or gutting the permitting and oversight process for industrial development," Manuel warned. "This fight isn't over, and we are going to keep working to keep the 'public' in public lands."
We won this battle, but no doubt Republicans are going to keep trying to sell off your public lands any chance they get. Our public lands are worth fighting for, and as long as I have the honor of representing Oregon in the Senate that's what I'll be doing.
— Senator Ron Wyden (@wyden.senate.gov) June 28, 2025 at 11:08 PM
Anna Peterson, executive director of the Mountain Pact, which works with over 100 communities on climate, outdoor recreation, and public lands policy, said that "as millions of Americans and western communities have reminded people again and again over the past few weeks, public lands are bipartisan, deeply revered, sustain our communities, power our economies, and serve as the cornerstone of our outdoor way of life. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to defending public lands, and continue to fight to make sure they remain where they belong forever: in public hands."
The Natural Resources Defense Council had criticized both the axed public land sale provision and attacks on renewable energy, which remain in the megabill. NRDC executive director Christy Goldfuss said that "the new budget reconciliation bill text is a shocking fossil fuels industry fever dream come to life. The corruption on display is galling."
"The bill has gone from fossil fuels boosterism to an active effort from Congress to kill wind and solar energy in the United States. This cannot be viewed as anything other than a 'Trump energy tax,'" Goldfuss said, blasting Republican plans to not only end incentives for renewable energy, but also impose new taxes on wind and solar generation.
"This bill was already going to force the biggest utility bill increase in history, but the new language can only be interpreted as a corrupt effort to advance oil, gas, and coal on the backs of everyday Americans," she continued. "This is a shocking effort to manipulate energy markets, siphon money from every household in the country, kill jobs, and shut down the fastest growing segment of the energy economy--all to enrich the barons at the helm of the most profitable enterprise in history."
Referencing one of Trump's early executive orders, Goldfuss added that "the administration claims that we are in an energy emergency, making it the wrong time to choke off the cheapest and fastest-to-deploy sources of energy."
Adrian Deveny, founder and president of policy advisory firm Climate Vision and a former policy director to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), toldPolitico: "It's a kill shot. This new excise tax on wind and solar is designed to fully kill the industry."
Costa Samaras, a clean energy leader in former Democratic President Joe Biden's White House, also warned on the social media network Bluesky on Saturday that the policy would kill Americans.
"The new bill in Congress puts a new tax on wind and solar. They're taxing clean energy to give your money to billionaires," Samaras said. "Taxing clean energy and making it harder for new clean energy to be built in the U.S. at a time when the grid is under increasing stress from extreme weather, will lead to people dying in heatwaves."
"They are taxing wind and solar power. Not just taking away the credits in Biden's climate law. But actively taxing wind and solar. My god this bill is terrible," he continued. "If you have a [Republican] representative, call and leave a message saying you don't want to raise taxes on clean energy... If you're a reporter, there's a story here. Why is the Senate putting the grid and Americans' lives at risk?"
Senate Democrats are also speaking out about the GOP assault on renewable energy. Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) are among those sounding the alarm.
"Big Oil has been getting tax breaks for more than a century," noted Markey. "Trump's big billionaire bill doesn't just cut clean energy incentives, it RAISES TAXES on wind and solar. It's a job killer, a planet killer, and an economy killer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watch: After Key Senate Vote Dems Force Reading of 940-Page GOP Megabill
"If Senate Republicans won't tell the American people what's in this bill, then Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Jun 29, 2025
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
After an hourslong delay from the initial goal of noon, U.S. Senate Republicans on Saturday night kicked off the process of passing their 940-page budget reconciliation package—which the chamber's Democrats are making the clerks read in full, not only to draw out the process but also to highlight the various provisions expected to harm American families while giving tax cuts to the rich.
"Senate Republicans are scrambling to pass a radical bill, released to the public in the dead of night, praying the American people don't realize what's in it," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor. "If Senate Republicans won't tell the American people what's in this bill, then Democrats are going to force this chamber to read it from start to finish."
Watch the bill reading:
After the reading, senators shift to debate and the period when they can offer amendments, known as the vote-a-rama. At this point, a final vote is expected sometime Monday. The House of Representatives has already passed its own version but must pass identical text before the bill can go to U.S. President Donald Trump's desk.
The Senate's updated bill text was released late Friday. Republicans then spent Saturday scrambling for enough support for the procedural vote. Ultimately, only Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted with Democrats against considering the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump wants to sign by July 4, or Independence Day.
Tillis explained his position in a lengthy statement, saying in part: "I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities. This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population."
Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) pointed out Saturday that "while Republican senators are securing baubles and trinkets for their political donors, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the Senate bill will cut $930 billion from Medicaid." That preliminary analysis doesn't account for other attacks on healthcare, including the Affordable Care Act.
"Just as before, these cruel cuts to Americans' healthcare will strike a mortal blow to rural healthcare, and threaten the health and safety of kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working families across the country," Wyden warned. "Life and death decisions of this magnitude should not be subjected to this rushed and reckless process. I urge Republican senators not to travel down this dangerous path: there is no band-aid that can heal these dangerous, deadly cuts."
It’s 2AM on a Sunday and I’m heading to the Capitol to FORCE a full reading of the Republicans’ 940-page bill.This bill will rip health care coverage away from 16 million people and cut food assistance.It’s sick. And we will not stand for it.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) June 29, 2025 at 2:02 AM
Paul suggested on social media Saturday evening that the GOP bill would add too much to the national debt. In his post on X, the senator also took a swipe at the platform's owner: the richest man on Earth, Elon Musk, who was the de facto leader of Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency until his ugly exit from government last month.
Musk, meanwhile, also took to X to blast the package, criticizing the proposed taxes on wind and solar projects: "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future."
The bill would not only attack clean energy, but also give Big Oil $18 billion in new subsidies. Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said in a Saturday statement that "these last-minute changes added in secret, behind closed doors, are breathtakingly stupid, as they would undermine thousands of energy projects under development, cause economic chaos, and make electricity more expensive and less reliable for Americans."
"Senate Republicans have zero interest in pursuing measured, thoughtful policy, and instead are only interested in pleasing Trump and extreme oil and gas campaign donors with inane culture war nonsense. The American people deserve better from their Senators than this absurd, harmful charade," he continued. "Trump's oil and gas donors will be delighted, but these cuts will hit America's working families with more expensive energy bills and less reliable service."
While celebrating the 51-49 procedural vote—and specifically praising Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) for their crucial support—Trump lashed out at both Paul and Tillis on his Truth Social platform Saturday, threatening the latter with a primary challenge. On Sunday, Tillis announced he will not seek reelection next year.
Politicoreported that on Saturday, "Vice President JD Vance arrived at the Capitol shortly after 8:00 pm to break a possible tie," with Johnson, Paul, and Tillis having already voted "no." Johnson changed his vote after negotiations that involved Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and the other holdouts listed by Trump.
One win for critics of the megabill is the removal of Lee's provision to force the sale of public lands, which had generated widespread opposition, including from some Republican lawmakers. Lee had tried to slip a rewritten version of the measure back into the package after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled against it earlier this week.
Still, advocates, clergy, and people at risk because of the Republican bill are planning a Moral Monday demonstration at the U.S. Capitol—with 51 caskets—to call out GOP attacks on Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and tax credits for working families.
"If this budget passes, it will unleash years of needless suffering on our nation's most vulnerable, preying on those with the least and undermining the dignity of hardworking, low-wage Americans. We must not—and will not—stop praying and advocating against this deadly and unjust bill," said Bishop William J. Barber II, president of Repairers of the Breach.
Barber, who has been arrested at the Capitol with other moral leaders, added that "we are going back to the Rotunda to pray—because we love the people of this nation too much to remain silent, and so we must raise our voices in moral demonstration and dissent."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular