SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
senate parliamentarian
Trump Demands Senate Fire Parliamentarian as GOP Drops $1 Billion for Ballroom From Bill
The president's tirade—which even the Senate majority leader called "concerning"—came as the GOP decided to exclude the funding from the package amid opposition from both Republican and Democratic senators.
May 20, 2026
As President Donald Trump on Wednesday publicly called for firing the Senate parliamentarian because she ruled against a GOP plan to include $1 billion in taxpayer dollars for the White House ballroom in the next budget reconciliation package, an upper chamber Republican confirmed that the proposal has been dropped from the bill.
"Shockingly, Republicans have kept the very important position of 'Parliamentarian' in the hands of a woman, Elizabeth MacDonough, who was appointed, long ago, by Barack Hussein Obama and a vicious Lunatic known as Senator Harry Reid, who ran the Senate for the Dumocrats with an 'iron fist,'" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
"Over the years, she has been brutal to Republicans, but not so to the Dumocrats—So why has she not been replaced? There are many fair people who would be qualified for that vital job," the president continued. "The Republicans play a very soft game compared to the Dumocrats. It is their single biggest disadvantage in politics. The Dumocrats cheat, lie, and steal, especially when it comes to Votes in Elections, but stick together, whereas the Republicans allow the Elizabeth MacDonoughs of the World to stay in power, and brutalize us. We need THE SAVE AMERICA ACT passed, and NOW—And, likewise, kill the Filibuster, which would give us everything! If we don’t pass at least one of these two provisions quickly, you will never see another Republican President again."
"The Dumocrats will end up with 2 additional States, DC and Puerto Rico, and all that entails, including 4 Senators, many Congressmen, and many additional Electoral Votes, and they will also get their dream of a packed United States Supreme Court with their most favorite number—21 Justices," he added. "The Dumocrats will eliminate the Filibuster on the First Day that they get an opportunity to do so. The Republicans aren't doing it because they say the Dumocrats will never do it, but the Republicans are WRONG. Get smart and tough Republicans, or you'll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!"
While former President Barack Obama was in office when MacDonough was appointed to her current role in 2012, that decision was made by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). She has angered both parties with her decisions over the years.
Trump's post followed reporting early this week that the president was pressuring US Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to fire MacDonough for her weekend ruling. The Hill reported that when asked about the post on Wednesday, Thune said that "I didn't read it, so I need to look at it."
"Obviously, it's concerning when anybody gets targeted like that. But it's, I guess, his opinion," the Senate majority leader said. "We'll make sure everybody's got security around here."
The proposed $1 billion in taxpayer funding would go toward security-related enhancements to the ballroom project, which has already involved tearing down the East Wing of the White House and former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy's Rose Garden. Standing outside the construction site trying to promote the project on Tuesday, Trump bragged about a planned "drone empire" on the roof.
As Common Dreams exclusively reported earlier Wednesday, 50 state legislators condemned the GOP's attempt to spend $1 billion in taxpayer money on the project in a letter to the president. They called on him "to reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created."
Thune signaled Wednesday that GOP lacked the support needed to get the ballroom funding through, telling reporters that "there may be some issues related to the parliamentarian, but most of the issues we have here are votes. The things we're dealing with here is vote count."
He suggested that firing MacDonough "would create even more vote issues here if we were to try to do something like that."
Later Wednesday, Politico reported that after a GOP lunch meeting, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said, "We were told that the ballroom money is out" of the proposal, and he would "like to read the text."
As the outlet noted: "Several GOP senators aired public concerns about including any ballroom funding in a bill otherwise dedicated to immigration enforcement. A larger swath of Republicans were privately opposed, with the mood souring further Tuesday amid anger over Trump's decision to endorse Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the upcoming GOP primary runoff in Texas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mike Lee Tries to Sneak Public Land Sale Back Into 'Big, Ugly Bill' Ahead of Senate Vote
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," said Sen. Ron Wyden. "If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
Jun 28, 2025
Ahead of a vote on Republicans' budget reconciliation package expected as soon as noon Saturday, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee revived his effort to sell off public lands.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has blocked multiple provisions of the GOP megabill, including several under the jurisdiction of the Utah Republican's panel. Among them is his attack on public lands.
"Here we go again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media after Lee released new text for his committee late Friday.
"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," Wyden continued. "Republicans are trying to get this over the finish line by the end of the weekend. If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever."
Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said in a Saturday morning statement that "the new version of Mike Lee's public lands sell-off is like cutting 'most' of the mercury out of your diet. The fact of the matter is that Mike Lee has spent the better part of a decade trying to privatize our public lands, and with his new power in the Senate, he's trying to push that agenda even further without public input, without transparency, and shame."
"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever," Manuel added. "Congress needs to listen to their constituents, not billionaires and private developers, and keep the 'public' in public lands.”
A document from Lee states that his "amended proposal dramatically narrows the scope of lands to be sold for housing... in communities where it is desperately needed" in the U.S. West. The new version would exclude all Forest Service land and reduce the amount of Bureau of Land Management acres to be sold by half.
"It's still bullshit," responded Noelle Porter, government affairs director at the National Housing Law Project.
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has recently said: "This isn't about building more housing or energy dominance. It's about giving their billionaire buddies YOUR land and YOUR money."
"From the Sierra Club to Joe Rogan, everybody is pissed off about Republicans' public lands sell-off," he wrote on social media Friday. "This is the broadest coalition I've seen around public lands in my lifetime, so keep making sure your voices are heard because we're winning."
Jane Fonda's climate-focused political action committee similarly stressed on social media Friday that "Lee is committed to including a massive public land sale provision in the Big Beautiful Bill. We need you to keep up the pressure and reach out to your senators today and demand they reject any new sales of public lands in this legislation."
And it's not just the land sales in the Friday night text of what critics call the "big, ugly bill." It also "creates new fees for renewable energy projects on public lands, and cuts royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal production on public lands," noted Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, which is working to build a clean energy economy. "Make it make sense."
As Manuel and Heinrich pointed out, some right-wingers are also outraged by Lee's push to sell off public lands. Benji Backer, founder of Nature Is Nonpartisan and the American Conservation Coalition, took aim at the committee chair on social media Friday night.
"Mike Lee just quietly doubled down on his mass public lands sel-loff by releasing new text," Backer said. "The Senate could consider it as soon as tomorrow. The secrecy is gross—and intentional. Lee knows it's his only path. America, we NEED to stand strong.
Tagging the Senate GOP account and Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Backer added that "Americans are entirely UNITED in opposition against this. Please ask Sen. Lee to let this provision... stand on its own—at the very least."
Even if the Senate somehow advances Lee's legislation, it could face trouble in the House of Representatives, which is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. On Thursday, Republican Reps. Ryan Zinke (Mont.), David Valadao (Calif.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Dan Newhouse (Wash.), and Cliff Bentz (Ore.) warned that "we cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks."
"If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no," warned the lawmakers, led by Zinke, who was the interior secretary during President Donald Trump's first term. Lee's provision, they wrote, would be a "grave mistake, unforced error, and poison pill that will cause the bill to fail should it come to the House floor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Budget Bill Falling Apart as Senate Parliamentarian Strikes Dozens of Provisions
"With more decisions to come, this guidance results in more than $250 billion in healthcare cuts removed from the Republicans' big bad bill," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Jun 26, 2025
Key elements of the sprawling Republican budget package—including major components of its assault on Medicaid—are crumbling under scrutiny from Democratic staffers and the Senate parliamentarian, who has deemed dozens of provisions in violation of reconciliation rules.
On Thursday, Elizabeth MacDonough—who was appointed as parliamentarian in 2012 and has served under both Republican and Democratic leadership—advised against nine provisions of the GOP legislation that are under the Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction.
One of the provisions seen as running afoul of the so-called Byrd Rule was the Senate GOP's proposal to sharply limit provider taxes that states use to fund their Medicaid programs—a change that experts said would result in catastrophic healthcare cuts.
Provisions targeted by the parliamentarian would be subject to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate if kept in the bill, meaning they would require Democratic support to pass. Republican leaders have indicated that they're rewriting some of the targeted provisions in an attempt to bring them into line with budget reconciliation rules, which bar provisions that don't have direct budgetary impacts.
"The parliamentarian has made clear that reconciliation can not be used to manipulate state provider tax policies, which would have resulted in massive Medicaid cuts that hurt kids, seniors, Americans with disabilities, and working families," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday following news of the parliamentarian's latest advisory rulings.
"With more decisions to come, this guidance results in more than $250 billion in healthcare cuts removed from the Republicans' big bad bill," said Wyden. "Democrats fought and won, striking healthcare cuts from this bill that would hurt Americans walking on an economic tightrope. This bill is rotten to its core, and I'll keep fighting the cuts in this morally bankrupt bill until the end."
Senate Budget Committee Democrats, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), provided a summary of the latest provisions deemed in violation of reconciliation rules:
"Democrats are continuing to make the case against every provision in this Big, Beautiful Betrayal of a bill that violates Senate rules and hurts families and workers," Merkley said in a statement Thursday. "Democrats are fighting back against Republicans' plans to gut Medicaid, dismantle the Affordable Care Act, and kick kids, veterans, seniors, and folks with disabilities off of their health insurance—all to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Under a behind-the-scenes process known as a "Byrd Bath," Senate committee staffers and the parliamentarian confer over whether a bill's provisions meet reconciliation guidelines.
In recent days, the parliamentarian has determined that dozens of provisions in the GOP legislation—including certain attacks on federal food aid, public lands, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—don't comply with the Byrd rule and must either be removed or face a 60-vote threshold in the upper chamber.
Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, praised minority staffers on the Senate Budget and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees on Wednesday after the parliamentarian ruled against six separate provisions of the GOP bill.
"Republicans just lost 10% of the affirmative savings they wanted to get in reconciliation. Truly in awe of the Bernie Sanders HELP staff and the Jeff Merkley Budget staff," Kogan, a former Senate Budget Committee staffer, wrote on social media.
In a Thursday post responding to the parliamentarian's latest decisions, Kogan wrote, "We won on trans care in Medicaid, provider taxes, [Federal Medical Assistance Percentage], immigrants in Medicaid, and other issues."
"These victories are amazing for the people they help—and cost Rs more than $250 billion of their savings by rough calculations, largely not curable," Kogan added.
Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee indicated Thursday that the parliamentarian is still reviewing a number of provisions, including a section of the Republican bill that would prohibit Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.
"Republicans are scrambling to rewrite parts of this bill to continue advancing their families lose and billionaires win agenda, but Democrats stand ready to fully scrutinize any changes and ensure the Byrd Rule is enforced," Merkley said Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s One Big Beautiful (Ugly) Bill Versus an Unsung Hero
An unlikely hero blocked a provision that amounted to an assault on the Constitution: the Senate parliamentarian. Will her ruling stick?
Jun 25, 2025
In the dead of night at 2:53 am on May 22, the House of Representatives began to consider President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
Four hours later, Republicans passed it by a single vote—215 to 214. It included a provision that effectively forgave most of Trump’s unconstitutional actions and undermined the federal courts.
Republicans in the Senate made it worse.
Over the weekend, an unlikely hero blocked this assault on the Constitution: the Senate parliamentarian. Will her ruling stick? Or will Senate Republicans detonate the “nuclear option” to save the provision?
Negating Trump’s Courtroom Losses
Buried in the House bill’s 1,000-plus pages was Section 70302, which allowed Trump to disregard all existing injunctions and continue his unconstitutional policies with impunity. It provided—retroactively—that unless a court required a bond, it could not enforce a contempt charge for violating an injunction or temporary restraining order.
Rarely are bonds required in cases challenging the constitutionality of government policies. Dozens of judges—including Trump appointees—have issued such injunctions to halt his attacks on Big Law firms, closure of federal agencies, deportation of migrants without due process, and more. In case after case, the Trump administration violated those injunctions or stonewalled. Faced with such disobedience, a court’s only enforcement weapon is a contempt charge.
The House was letting Trump off the hook.
“We Can Look at the Language”
Protecting Trump is one thing. But in their myopic quest to make Trump king, House Republicans committed legislative malpractice: Section 70302 also rendered unenforceable hundreds of previous injunctions issued over decades in cases, ranging from antitrust to school desegregation to police reform.
The provision emerged from the House Judiciary Committee after Democrats tried to kill it. Then it went to the Rules Committee where the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, longtime Trump loyalist Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), seemed not to grasp its scope.
Unfortunately, Trump—who has urged elimination of the filibuster—doesn’t care about preserving the institutional value of anything. If he can neuter the courts in the process of bending the Senate to his will, so much the better.
In response to questions from Rules Committee member Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), Jordan asserted incorrectly that the law would apply only to nationwide injunctions in immigration cases. Rep. Neguse pointed out that the provision had no such limitations. It did not contain the words “immigration” or “nationwide.”
Obviously confused, Jordan—a lawyer—briefly consulted with attorneys before responding that Republicans can “look at the language.”
“It’s 6:00 am. You’re voting on this thing in like 10 hours. What are we talking about?” Rep. Neguse replied.
The language didn’t change, and the vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill proceeded.
“This Provision Was Unknown to Me”
Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) has a law degree from the University of Nebraska. At a town hall meeting after voting for the bill, he told angry constituents that he didn’t know about Section 70302.
“I am not going to hide the truth,” he said. “This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill.”
“You voted for it!” came shouts from the audience.
Rep. Flood promised to seek its deletion.
The Senate Version is Worse
The Senate proposed a different way to protect Trump’s unconstitutional actions from judicial scrutiny: an enormous bond that would close the courts to the vast majority of potential litigants. It would require any plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal government to post a bond “in an amount proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by the Federal Government.”
That could be millions—sometimes billions—of dollars. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick outlined the tragic irony:
“The basic idea of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is to prevent the damage to the rights and well-being of citizens from the government carrying out an action or policy that is likely to be found illegal or unconstitutional.”
“The new Senate version turns that logic on its head, instead seeking to protect the government from any costs that might be incurred from citizens asserting their rights…” [emphasis in original]
The Senate version would also prohibit a court from considering “any factor other than” the costs and damages that the government will sustain if it gets the injunction reversed on appeal. In other words, a plaintiff’s inability to pay the bond and the hardship that a plaintiff will sustain if the court refuses to grant the injunction are irrelevant.
The provision would prevent most lawsuits against government action from being filed in the first place because few would have the means to pay upfront. As Justice Bolick observed, Trump’s victims would have no choice but to “accept violations of their rights rather than seek legal redress, severely undermining the Constitution.”
An Unsung Profile in Courage
The Senate is relying on the “reconciliation” process to pass Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill with a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes that would otherwise be required to overcome a Democratic filibuster. But the process is available only for legislation relating to government spending, taxes, and the deficit. “Extraneous” measures are not allowed.
The Senate parliamentarian determines what is “extraneous.” Elizabeth MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney, has held the nonpartisan position since 2012. Several times under both Republicans and Democrats she has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills. The current attempt to limit federal court injunctions is among many provisions that she struck from the Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill.
That’s a problem because there are only 53 Senate Republicans, and they need 60 votes to overcome any objection to an extraneous provision, unless…
The “Nuclear Option”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) could accept the parliamentarian’s rulings and strip the Senate bill of its offending provisions.
Or he could overrule the parliamentarian with a simple majority (50 + Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote)—a rare event. On January 6, 2025, Thune said he wouldn’t use that “nuclear option”:
“Yeah, and that’s totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can’t go there. People need to understand that.”
Sen. John Thune is about to get the test of his political career: loyalty to Trump or to the Constitution?
On May 21, Thune led Republicans in disregarding the parliamentarian’s opinion and repealing California’s electric vehicle mandate banning the sale of most new gas-powered cars by 2035. On the Senate floor, he assured Democrats that it was a one-off based on the Congressional Review Act:
“We are not talking about doing anything to erode the institutional character of the Senate.”
Unfortunately, Trump—who has urged elimination of the filibuster—doesn’t care about preserving the institutional value of anything. If he can neuter the courts in the process of bending the Senate to his will, so much the better.
Sen. John Thune is about to get the test of his political career: loyalty to Trump or to the Constitution? He swore an oath only to one of them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Parliamentarian Blocks 'Big, Ugly Bill' Public Lands Sale and Offshore Drilling Policies
While calling the public lands decision "an important victory," one campaigner also warned that "this threat is far from over."
Jun 24, 2025
Critics of Republican efforts to continue wrecking the planet celebrated some small victories after the U.S. Senate parliamentarian on Monday advised that multiple provisions cannot be passed as part of a megabill that only requires a simple majority.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough found that some GOP legislative proposals about offshore drilling and mandatory public land sales could not be included in the package due to the so-called Byrd Rule, which bars provisions considered "extraneous to the purpose of implementing budget resolution policies."
Specifically, MacDonough axed a provision that deems offshore oil and gas projects as automatically compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), nullifying their environmental review processes. She also ruled against a proposal requiring offshore fossil fuel leases to be issued to successful bidders within 90 days after the sale, and a separate mandate for the sale of millions of acres of public land.
"This wasn't just an obscure and damaging policy—it was an assault on the places where generations of Americans have hiked, hunted, fished, camped, and connected with the natural beauty of our country."
MacDonough also blocked provisions allowing natural gas exporters to pay to have their project deemed in the public interest; requiring a permit for the construction of Ambler Road, a controversial mining route in Alaska; directing the interior secretary to hold yearly geothermal lease sales; and revoking the secretary's discretion to reduce fees for solar and wind projects on Bureau of Land Management land.
Other provisions under the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's jurisdiction that are still being reviewed include policies that would require that 90% of the revenue from lease sales in the Cook Inlet go to the state of Alaska, starting in 2035; mandate fossil fuel lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska; and force the interior secretary to approve new coal lease applications.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday applauded MacDonough's decision on the "cruel" GOP policy that "would have gutted America's public lands and auctioned them off to the highest bidder, in yet another bid to benefit the wealthy."
"This wasn't just an obscure and damaging policy—it was an assault on the places where generations of Americans have hiked, hunted, fished, camped, and connected with the natural beauty of our country," Schumer said. "Republicans tried to rip away hundreds of millions of acres of public land—not to help families, not to solve real problems—but to hand yet another gift to the wealthy and well-connected. It was outrageous, it was shameless, and it would have forever changed the character of the country."
"Senate Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep public lands in public hands because these lands belong to everyone—not just the privileged few," Schumer said of Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) proposal that put those lands at risk.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also put out a statement welcoming MacDonough's latest moves against what critics are calling the "Big, Ugly Bill" and highlighting his party's opposition.
"Democrats continue to show up and fight every provision of this Big, Beautiful Betrayal of a bill, because this bill is an attack on workers and families everywhere," Merkley said Monday. "Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules of reconciliation in order to sell off public lands to fund tax breaks for billionaires. We will make sure the Byrd Rule is followed and review any changes Republicans attempt to make to the bill."
Like the Democratic leaders, Trust for Public Land CEO and president Carrie Besnette Hauser on Tuesday called MacDonough's latest decisions "an important victory in the fight to protect America's public lands from short-sighted proposals that would have undermined decades of bipartisan work to protect, steward, and expand access to the places we all share."
"Across the country and across party lines, Americans have made it overwhelmingly clear: They do not want to see their public lands sold off to the highest bidder. Land sell-off proposals are deeply out of step with the will of a vast majority of Americans," she noted. "But make no mistake—this threat is far from over. Efforts to dismantle our public lands continue, and we must remain vigilant as proposals now under consideration including a proposal to roll back the landmark, bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act and threaten full, dedicated funding for conservation through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)."
"Public lands are not political bargaining chips, but national treasures that power local economies, strengthen public health, and connect millions of people to the outdoors every day," she added. "Trust for Public Land will continue to stand with communities, tribal nations, and bipartisan champions in Congress to defend public lands and ensure they remain protected, accessible, and thriving—for all people, for all future generations."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has suggested that Republicans will not overrule the parliamentarian. According to Reuters, he told reporters on Monday that the review process is "something we have to go through," and "they're working through it. And in some cases, as things are flagged, we're making counteroffers."
Although MacDonough dealt a blow to the GOP agenda, the Trump administration on Monday continued its assault on the planet, announcing plans to end a rule that protects tens of millions of acres in the National Forest System, which would enable road development and timber production on those lands.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Parliamentarian Blocks Republican Attacks on SNAP, CFPB in Reconciliation Bill
"We will be fighting this bill every single day until Republicans bring it to the floor," said Sen. Jeff Merkley.
Jun 21, 2025
Democratic senators on Saturday applauded the news that several of the Republican Party's proposals in President Donald Trump's domestic spending bill must be struck from the legislation—potentially protecting millions of Americans from cuts to crucial nutrition assistance and the elimination of federal consumer protections.
"As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book and advance their conservative 'families lose and billionaires win' agenda, this process has rules and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled late Friday that a measure pushing some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program onto the states should be struck from the bill, along with a provision barring undocumented immigrants from receiving SNAP benefits.
MacDonough has been analyzing the legislation to ensure its provisions comply with the Byrd Rule. The rule requires that measures included in reconciliation bills, which can be passed with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote threshold, are directly related to budget matters.
Republicans have pushed the SNAP provision to partially cover the cost of extending massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, said MacDonough had "made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts."
Klobuchar called on Republicans to work with the Democratic Party "to lower costs for Americans and pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that works for all farmers and rural America."
The Republican who chairs Klobuchar's committee, Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) suggested Republicans would look for other ways to cut nutrition assistance that more than 40 million Americans—including 8% of Boozman's own constituents—rely on.
If Republicans fail to strip out provisions that are rejected by MacDonough, the GOP could be forced to find at least 60 votes to support the budget bill.
Earlier this week, MacDonough rejected a provision put forward by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) that would cap the funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) at 0% of the Federal Reserve's total operating budget—effectively gutting the agency that has returned tens of billions of dollars to Americans who have been defrauded by banks and other corporations.
"The Senate parliamentarian has begun providing guidance that certain provisions in the Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Betrayal' will be subject to the Byrd Rule—ultimately meaning they will need to be stripped from the bill or altered to comply with the rules of reconciliation," said Merkley. "We will be fighting this bill every single day until Republicans bring it to the floor."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who pushed for the creation of the CFPB, said Scott's proposal was "a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk—all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires."
"Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill," said Warren.
Also rejected by MacDonough were a provision aimed at reducing the pay of Federal Reserve staff and one that would repeal emissions standards for vehicles starting in 2027.
On Saturday MacDonough was still considering a measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Latest Betrayal of Democracy': Trump Signs Order Blocking CA Effort to Ban New Gas-Powered Cars
"There is no reason politicians in Washington should be stepping in at this late date to try and undercut states' protections for their residents," said one climate advocate.
Jun 12, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday signed multiple Congressional Review Act resolutions that target California's efforts to adopt electric vehicles statewide and phase out gas-powered cars, in a move that one climate campaigner called "Trump's latest betrayal of democracy."
Trump reversed a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waiver granted to California during the waning days of the Biden administration that allowed the state to enforce tougher vehicle pollution standards. That decision allowed California to require that gasoline-powered cars be phased out, and implement a ban on the sale of new gasoline-powered cars completely in 2035.
The other resolutions signed by Trump revoked waivers for a policy that required half of all new trucks sold in California be electric by 2035, and overturned a policy that placed limits on "allowable emissions of nitrogen oxide from cars and trucks," according to The New York Times.
Congress, which is Republican-controlled, passed a measure in May that paved the way for Thursday's signing. At the time, the Senate parliamentarian, the unelected arbiter of the chamber's procedures, said that the EPA waivers did not qualify as federal rules for the purpose of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The Government Accountability Office has also said they aren't subject to the law.
The CRA gives lawmakers a limited window to overturn federal rules, and resolutions brought under the law are not subject to the Senate filibuster.
Green groups sharply condemned Trump's signing of the resolutions.
"Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets," said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign, on Thursday.
Simon Mui, managing director for transportation at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Thursday that "California's vehicle standards reduce costs for drivers, increase customer choice, boost domestic manufacturing, improve air quality, and help address the climate crisis."
"There is no reason politicians in Washington should be stepping in at this late date to try and undercut states' protections for their residents," Mui continued. "The oil industry may be celebrating today, but the rest of us are going to continue to keep fighting for cleaner air, lower energy bills, and a safer climate."
Katherine García, director of the Sierra Club's Clean Transportation for All campaign, said on Thursday that "instead of investing in electric vehicle manufacturing here in the U.S. and leading us towards a healthier future, the administration is dead set on pushing us backwards and ceding EV innovation and leadership to China."
Shortly after Trump signed the resolutions, California officials announced they had filed a lawsuit over the move. A statement from Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office called the resolutions "illegal."
"The president's reckless, politically motivated, and illegal attacks on California continue, this time with his attempt to trample on our longstanding authority to maintain more stringent clean vehicle standards," said California Attorney General Bonta in a statement Thursday announcing the legal challenge. "The president is busy playing partisan games with lives on the line and yanking away good jobs that would bolster the economy—ignoring that these actions have life or death consequences for California communities breathing dirty, toxic air."
California also recently filed a legal challenge over Trump's decision to order the deployment of National Guard members and Marine troops to Los Angeles in response to protests that sprang up in response to federal immigration raids.
Keep ReadingShow Less
State Lawmakers Call on Congress to Ditch 'Ridiculous' Legislation Forbidding Local Regulation of AI
"The idea that the U.S. can afford to take a decade-long break from regulating technology that is getting more powerful by the day would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling."
Jun 03, 2025
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers told their counterparts in the U.S. Congress Tuesday that they hear frequently from their constituents about concerns regarding the rise of artificial intelligence and demanded that they not leave people across the country "vulnerable to harm" by passing a Republican-pushed provision to stop state legislatures from regulating AI.
The provision is part of the massive tax and spending bill that narrowly passed in the House last month and is now being taken up by the Senate.
Republicans hope to approve the bill in the Senate through reconciliation, which would allow it to pass with a simple majority along party lines. But at the state level, half of the 260 lawmakers who wrote to the Senate and House on Tuesday were Republicans who warned that the provision imposing a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulations would "cut short democratic discussion of AI policy" and "freeze policy innovation in developing the best practices for AI governance at a time when experimentation is vital."
"State legislators have done thoughtful work to protect constituents against some of the most obvious and egregious harms of AI
that the public is facing in real time," said the lawmakers. "A federal moratorium on AI policy threatens to wipe out these laws and a range of legislation, impacting more than just AI development and leaving constituents across the country vulnerable to harm."
The moratorium would tie state lawmakers' hands as they try to address new AI threats online, AI-generated scams that target seniors, and the challenges that an "AI-integrated economy" poses for workers, artists, and creators.
"Given the long absence of federal action to address privacy and social media harms, barring all state and local AI laws until Congress acts threatens to setback policymaking and undermine existing enforcement on these issues."
"Over the next decade, AI will raise some of the most important public policy questions of our time, and it is critical that state policymakers maintain the ability to respond," wrote the lawmakers, whose letter was organized by groups including Common Sense and Mothers Against Media Addiction.
Proponents of the reconciliation bill's AI provision claim that various state-level regulations would put roadblocks in front of tech firms and stop them from competing internationally in AI development.
South Dakota state Sen. Liz Larson (D-10), who sponsored a bill requiring transparency in political deepfake ads ahead of elections that passed with bipartisan support, told The Washington Post that the federal government has left state legislatures with no choice but to handle the issue of AI on their own.
"I could understand a moratorium, potentially, if there was a better alternative that was being offered at the federal level," Larson told the Post. "But there's not."
Congress has considered a number of bills aimed at regulating AI, but there are currently no comprehensive federal regulations on AI development. President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at "removing barriers to American leadership in AI," which rescinded former President Joe Biden's executive order for the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI.
Ilana Beller, a democracy advocate for Public Citizen, said the "ridiculous provision" in the reconciliation bill "is a slap in the face to the state legislators who have taken bipartisan action to protect their constituents from urgent AI-related harms—and a thinly veiled gift to Big Tech companies that will profit as a result of a complete lack of oversight."
"The idea that the U.S. can afford to take a decade-long break from regulating technology that is getting more powerful by the day would be laughable if it weren't so appalling," said Beller. "Members of Congress should listen to their counterparts at the state level and reject this provision immediately."
More than 140 civil society groups last month, as Common Dreams reported at the time, expressed their opposition to the provision, warning that "no person, no matter their politics, wants to live in a world where AI makes life-or-death decisions without accountability."
The Senate parliamentarian is reviewing the bill for compliance with the Byrd Rule, which stipulates that reconciliation bills can only contain budget-related provisions.
Republicans including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have suggested they could introduce a separate bill to weaken AI regulations or preempt any state-level laws if the provision is stripped from the reconciliation bill.
"We welcome Congress's attention to AI policy and stand ready to work with federal lawmakers to address the challenges and opportunities created by AI," said the state lawmakers. "However, given the long absence of federal action to address privacy and social media harms, barring all state and local AI laws until Congress acts threatens to setback policymaking and undermine existing enforcement on these issues. We respectfully urge you to reject any provision that preempts state and local AI legislation in this year's reconciliation package, and to work toward the enactment, rather than the erasure, of thoughtful AI policy solutions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Republicans Bypass Filibuster to Advance 'Brazenly Corrupt Handout to Big Polluters'
"Senate Republicans have now set the stage to potentially do the same thing in service of adding nongermane, devastating policy provisions to their horrific reconciliation bill," one watchdog warned.
May 22, 2025
Senate Republicans late Wednesday made use of arcane procedural maneuvers to bypass the chamber's 60-vote filibuster and move ahead with a measure to overturn federal waivers that allowed California to set tougher vehicle pollution standards.
The 51-46 party-line vote came after the Senate parliamentarian, the unelected arbiter of the chamber's procedures, said that the Environmental Protection Agency waivers issued at the tail-end of the Biden administration did not qualify as federal rules for the purpose of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
The CRA gives lawmakers a limited window to overturn federal rules, and resolutions brought under the law are not subject to the Senate filibuster. The Republican-controlled House voted earlier this month to repeal the California waivers with a CRA resolution, paving the way for Senate action.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans engaged in a procedural gambit that allowed them to skirt the filibuster while claiming they did not vote to overrule the parliamentarian. As The New York Times explained, Republicans "argued that the situation was 'novel'... allowing the Senate to establish its own course of action since no exact precedents existed."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen, warned in a statement that the GOP move sets a dangerous precedent, potentially laying the groundwork for Republicans to bypass parliamentarian rulings on provisions of the sprawling reconciliation package that the House passed Thursday morning.
"Tonight they voted to disregard clear legal requirements in their own statutes and rulebook, jettison the judgment of the Senate's referees, and sow long-term chaos so they could pass a brazenly corrupt handout to Big Polluters," said Gilbert. "It's outrageous, dangerous, and reckless in the extreme."
"Senate Republicans have now set the stage to potentially do the same thing in service of adding nongermane, devastating policy provisions to their horrific reconciliation bill of tax handouts for the wealthy and cuts to our social safety net," Gilbert added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP 'Backdoor Nuclear Option' on Filibuster Spells More Harm for American People, Critics Warn
With Trump in office and the wholesale dismantling of democracy underway, one watchdog called what Republicans are planning "the last thing the country needs right now."
May 09, 2025
Government watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers are sounding alarms over a Senate GOP plan to overrule the chamber's parliamentarian and repeal federal waivers that have allowed California to enact stricter pollution standards.
But critics warned that the implications of the Republican plan, which the party's leadership is still discussing, are far-reaching and could enable the GOP to advance other unpopular elements of their pro-corporate, far-right agenda.
"If senators are willing to overrule the Senate parliamentarian and circumvent Senate rules on the filibuster for the Congressional Review Act, there is nothing to stop them from going nuclear over and over with policies that would harm Americans and destabilize our democracy," said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, on Thursday. "This could happen with other CRA proposals or in the reconciliation process."
The CRA allows lawmakers to review and—with the support of a simple majority in both chambers of Congress—overturn federal rules within a limited timeframe. CRA resolutions of disapproval are not subject to the Senate's 60-vote filibuster, a relic of the Jim Crow era that Republicans have selectively defended or scrapped depending on whether they're in the majority.
Republicans want to use the filibuster-proof CRA to block California's Clean Air Act waivers, but the Senate parliamentarian—the chamber's unelected arbiter of Senate rules and procedures—has said the waivers don't qualify as rules subject to the CRA.
Defying the parliamentarian—something Republicans have already done as they craft their bill to slash safety net programs and taxes for the rich—to undo the waivers would effectively gut the filibuster, opponents of the GOP plan warned. Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled House voted to revoke the California waivers using the CRA.
"Anti-democratic and authoritarian measures, corporate giveaways, and rights infringements that could never become law if normal Senate rules were followed—legislation making it harder to vote, repealing core environmental standards, stripping abortion rights, and more—might suddenly become law," Gilbert warned Thursday. "A backdoor nuclear option sets an atrocious precedent and must not be allowed. Critical checks hang in the balance."
"Think about how the Trump administration might abuse this."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, echoed those concerns, saying in a floor speech Thursday that "the import of overruling the parliamentarian extends far beyond CRA resolutions."
"Think about how the Trump administration might abuse this," said Whitehouse. "Everyone knows by now that President Trump has a beef with a whole host of media outlets, some of which are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. What's to stop the FCC from submitting CBS' license as a 'rule' and members from introducing a disapproval resolution? Is this really the path we want to go down?"
In a floor speech of his own, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) directly quoted Senate Majority Leader John Thune's (R-S.D.) warning earlier this year against overruling the parliamentarian.
"That's totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go there," Thune said in January. "People need to understand that."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) delivers a speech on the Senate floor on May 8, 2025. (Photo: Sen. Alex Padilla)
Earlier this week, Thune said his caucus is "still looking at" voting on a CRA resolution to revoke the California waivers. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Axios last week that the upper chamber would "absolutely" take up the House-passed CRA resolution.
Gilbert of Public Citizen said Thursday that "this backdoor nuclear option would not only make the Senate more like the House—it would make the Senate more like the chaotic, make-it-up-as-you-go White House."
"That's the last thing the country needs right now," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy