Politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hours clicking toward a midnight government shutdown deadline, the Senate was preparing to give final passage late Friday to a new plan that would temporarily fund federal operations and disaster aid, but drops President-elect Donald Trump’s demands for a debt limit increase into the new year.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had insisted Congress would “meet our obligations” and not allow federal operations to shutter ahead of the Christmas holiday season. But the day’s outcome was uncertain after Trump doubled down on his insistence that a debt ceiling increase be included in any deal — if not, he said in an early morning post, let the closures “start now.”

The House approved Johnson’s new bill overwhelmingly, 366-34, and the Senate was working late into the night toward votes.

“This is a good outcome for the country, ” Johnson said afterward, adding he had spoken with Trump and the president-elect “was certainly happy about this outcome, as well.”

It was the third attempt from Johnson, the beleaguered House speaker, to achieve one of the basic requirements of the federal government — keeping it open.

President Joe Biden, who has played a less public role in the process throughout a turbulent week, was expected to quickly sign the measure into law.

Trump’s last-minute demand was almost an impossible ask, and Johnson had almost no choice but to work around his pressure for a debt ceiling increase. The speaker knew there wouldn’t be enough support within the GOP majority to pass any funding package, since many Republican deficit hawks prefer to slash federal government and certainly wouldn’t allow more debt.

Instead, the Republicans, who will have full control of the White House, House and Senate next year, with big plans for tax cuts and other priorities, are showing they must routinely rely on Democrats for the votes needed to keep up with the routine operations of governing.

“So is this a Republican bill or a Democrat bill?” scoffed Musk on social media ahead of the vote.

The drastically slimmed-down 118-page package would fund the government at current levels through March 14 and add $100 billion in disaster aid and $10 billion in agricultural assistance to farmers.

Gone is Trump’s demand to lift the debt ceiling, which GOP leaders told lawmakers would be debated as part of their tax and border packages in the new year. Republicans made a so-called handshake agreement to raise the debt limit at that time while also cutting $2.5 trillion in spending over 10 years.

It’s essentially the same deal that flopped the night before in a spectacular setback — opposed by most Democrats and some of the most conservative Republicans — minus Trump’s debt ceiling demand.

But it’s far smaller than the original bipartisan accord Johnson struck with Democratic and Republican leaders — a 1,500-page bill that Trump and Musk rejected, forcing him to start over. It was stuffed with a long list of other bills — including much-derided pay raises for lawmakers — but also other measures with broad bipartisan support that now have a tougher path to becoming law.

House Democrats were cool to the latest effort after Johnson reneged on the hard-fought bipartisan compromise.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said it looked like Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, was calling the shots for Trump and Republicans.

Still, the Democrats put up more votes than Republicans for the bill’s passage. Almost three dozen conservative Republicans voted against it.

Trump, who has not yet been sworn into office, is showing the power but also the limits of his sway with Congress, as he intervenes and orchestrates affairs from Mar-a-Lago alongside Musk, who is heading up the incoming administration’s new Department of Government Efficiency.

The incoming Trump administration vows to slash the federal budget and fire thousands of employees and is counting on Republicans for a big tax package. And Trump’s not fearful of shutdowns the way lawmakers are, having sparked the longest government shutdown in history in his first term at the White House.

“If there is going to be a shutdown of government, let it begin now,” Trump posted early in the morning on social media.

More important for the president-elect was his demand for pushing the thorny debt ceiling debate off the table before he returns to the White House. The federal debt limit expires Jan. 1, and Trump doesn’t want the first months of his new administration saddled with tough negotiations in Congress to lift the nation’s borrowing capacity. Now Johnson will be on the hook to deliver.

“Congress must get rid of, or extend out to, perhaps, 2029, the ridiculous Debt Ceiling,” Trump posted — increasing his demand for a new five-year debt limit increase. “Without this, we should never make a deal.”

Government workers had already been told to prepare for a federal shutdown which would send millions of employees — and members of the military — into the holiday season without paychecks.

Biden has been in discussions with Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

As the day dragged on with no deal in sight, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell stepped in to remind colleagues “how harmful it is to shut the government down, and how foolish it is to bet your own side won’t take the blame for it.”

At one point, Johnson asked House Republicans for a lunchtime meeting for a show of hands as they tried to choose the path forward.

It wasn’t just the shutdown, but the speaker’s job on the line. The speaker’s election is the first vote of the new Congress, which convenes Jan. 3, and some Trump allies have floated Musk for speaker.

Johnson said he spoke to Musk ahead of the vote Friday and they talked about the “extraordinary challenges of this job.”

source

By Alexandra Alper

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Nippon Steel alleges the White House had “impermissible undue influence” over a national security review of its $14.9 billion bid for U.S. Steel and threatened legal action if the deal is blocked.

The accusation was made in a Dec. 17 letter, signed by counsel for Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel and seen by Reuters, to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

CFIUS, which reviews foreign acquisitions for national security risks, has a Monday deadline to approve the deal, extend the review, or recommend that President Joe Biden scuttle it. However, an expected government shutdown would pause the clock, CFIUS lawyers said.

Last weekend, CFIUS set the stage for Biden, who has long opposed the tie-up, to block it in a 29-page letter by raising allegedly unresolved national security risks, Reuters exclusively reported.

In its response, Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel rebut CFIUS’s national security arguments and allege that Biden improperly influenced the review’s outcome before CFIUS could reach its conclusions.

Specifically, their Dec. 17 letter claims Biden may have weighed in on the deal to please United Steelworkers (USW) President David McCall, who opposes the tie-up, and endorsed Biden for President soon after he announced his opposition to the merger.

Biden has opposed the deal because he believes that U.S. Steel should be American-owned and operated.

“We are gravely concerned that the December 14 Letter reflects impermissible influence in the CFIUS process from the White House, at the behest of third parties who oppose the transaction and seek to weaken the Parties, namely, Cleveland-Cliffs…, led by CEO Lourenco Goncalves, and Mr. McCall,” Nippon and U.S. Steel’s latest response to CFIUS reads.

Cleveland-Cliffs was a suitor for U.S. Steel and also opposes the deal with Nippon.

White House spokesperson Saloni Sharma said the allegation “is not true.” She did not specifically address if Biden would block the deal, adding, “The President has been clear that he will continue to see what the CFIUS process yields.”

“We look forward to finalizing the transaction and remain committed to working with all relevant parties to do so,” U.S. Steel said in a statement.

Nippon Steel and Cleveland Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves declined to comment.

HIGH-LEVEL OPPOSITION

The proposed tie-up has faced high-level opposition within the United States since it was announced a year ago, with both Biden and his incoming successor Donald Trump taking aim at it as they sought to woo union voters in the swing state of Pennsylvania, where U.S. Steel is headquartered. Trump has also asserted the iconic American company should remain American-owned.

The merger appeared fast-tracked to be blocked after the companies received an Aug. 31 letter from CFIUS, seen by Reuters, arguing the deal could hurt the supply of steel needed for critical transportation, construction and agriculture projects.

But Nippon Steel countered that its investments, made by a company from an allied nation, would in fact shore up U.S. Steel’s output and won a 90-day review extension. That extension gave CFIUS until after the November election to make a decision, fueling hope among supporters that a calmer political climate could help the deal’s approval.

“PERSONAL ASSURANCES”

In making the case that President Biden was doing a favor to McCall, the letter cited a February USW news release in which the union leader stated, “Today we received personal assurances that President Joe Biden has our backs,” McCall said. “He’s always been a friend to the American worker and our union, and we’re grateful he’s taking an interest in this matter.”

The White House denied the allegation Biden’s opposition is at the behest of McCall and referred Reuters to his March statement against the deal. McCall said in a statement that “Nippon’s efforts to circulate unfounded rumors and threats of legal action are regrettable, but ultimately, they’re no more than a distraction from the dangers the company’s acquisition of U.S. Steel poses.”

If Biden blocks the deal, “the Parties would immediately file a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit challenging the decision as a violation of due process and the authority of the President,” under CFIUS authorities, Nippon Steel writes.

(Reporting by Alexandra Alper; Editing by Anna Driver)

source

By Steve Holland and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican hardliners who normally are ardent supporters of President-elect Donald Trump are resisting his push to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, sticking to their belief that government spending needs to be pruned and defying his warnings of revenge.

Some 38 House of Representatives Republicans voted against a debt ceiling bill Trump demanded, showing the limits of his grip on the party, a month before he takes office on Jan. 20.

It was the first time that Congress had been asked to vote on a Trump priority since his election. While some of his Cabinet picks have drawn some Republican criticism, those who dropped out of consideration — notably former congressman Matt Gaetz — did so on their own accord.

But Trump’s call to suspend limits on borrowing — at a time the federal government’s debt exceeds $36 trillion — runs against long-voiced Republican concerns about fiscal profligacy in Washington. 

“Suspending the debt ceiling entirely at this point would allow Congress to add an unlimited amount of debt to our already $36 trillion national debt for two years, with no reforms to rein in reckless spending,” said Republican Representative Nancy Mace, one of the 38 who voted against the bill, which was also meant to avert a partial government shutdown that will begin on Saturday without Congressional action.

Trump has prioritized more tax cuts in his second term, which tax experts say could add another $4 trillion to the U.S. debt over the next decade. He has tapped Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to identify ways to cut government spending.

Most of the Republicans who voted down Thursday’s bill come from safely conservative districts in states including West Virginia, South Carolina, Utah, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and Arizona.

Trump has threatened to support candidates who mount primary challenges to them in the 2026 midterm elections.

“Republican obstructionists have to be done away with,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

He doubled down on his demand on Friday, asking a House that rejected a two-year suspension of the limit to lift it for five years.

Hardline Republican Representative Chip Roy, who denounced the debt ceiling plan in a fiery Thursday night speech on the House floor, told reporters he would not support lifting the debt ceiling increase without seeing a specific plan for spending cuts to offset it.

“That’s a non-starter for me. If I lose that, that’s fine. I can go home and be happy and content,” Roy said.

Congress adopted a limit on the amount of money the government can borrow in 1939, aiming to stem the rise of government’s debt. It has not achieved its purpose, with debt soaring, fueled by Democratic-backed spending, Republican-backed tax cuts and the spiraling cost of the Social Security retirement program.

But it has been the periodic focus of Washington brinkmanship, subjecting the nation to the risk of a potentially catastrophic default that would shake global markets.

Thursday’s failure upped the pressure on Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who leads a fractious and narrow majority and has often had to rely on Democratic votes to pass key pieces of legislation. Republicans will have an even smaller majority — initially 219-215 — when the new Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3 and lawmakers will decide whether to reelect Johnson as their leader.

Johnson on Friday was struggling to plot a way forward as an at least temporary government shutdown looked increasingly likely.

Another one of the 38, Representative Kat Cammack, said her opposition to the revised spending bill was “not an easy vote for a number of reasons, but namely, the debt ceiling.”

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Katherine Jackson and Steve Holland; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)

source

By Nate Raymond

(Reuters) – Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden secured his 235th appointment to the federal judiciary on Friday, narrowly surpassing President-elect Donald Trump’s first-term tally by one with a record number of women and people of color named to the bench.

The Democratic-led U.S. Senate voted to confirm two of Biden’s nominees to serve as life-tenured federal trial court judges in California, capping off a four-year effort by the White House to reshape a federal judiciary that shifted ideologically to the right during the first presidential term of Trump, a Republican.

Biden now ranks No. 2 in history for the most judicial appointments in a single four-year term, beating the 234 Trump named. Democratic former President Jimmy Carter holds the one-term record with 262 judges appointed.

“It is historic,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor. “It sets a record.”

Biden surpassed Trump’s first-term record despite inheriting fewer than half as many vacancies to fill when he took office as Trump. But Biden appointed fewer appeals court judges than Trump and only one U.S. Supreme Court justice compared with Trump’s three.

Trump is expected to have the chance to appoint more than 100 judges over four years when his second term begins Jan. 20.

About two-thirds of Biden’s appointees are women, and about the same proportion are Black, Hispanic or other racial minorities, in keeping with a campaign pledge he made to diversify a bench that has long been largely white and male.

“When I ran for president, I promised to build a bench that looks like America and reflects the promise of our nation,” Biden said in a statement. “And I’m proud I kept my commitment to bolstering confidence in judicial decision-making and outcomes.”

He also pushed to diversify the professional backgrounds of a judiciary long dominated by former prosecutors and one-time law firm partners. The White House said Biden appointed more than 45 public defenders to the bench and more than 25 civil rights lawyers to serve as judges.

The latest confirmed nominees included Serena Murillo, a state court judge in Los Angeles who became the 150th woman confirmed to a judgeship under Biden, with the Senate voting 49-47 in favor of her serving in the Central District of California.

That is a record number of women judges appointed by one president, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an advocacy group that backed many of Biden’s nominees. Democratic former President Barack Obama had the prior record with 138 confirmed over his eight years in office.

The Senate also voted 49-47 in favor of elevating San Diego-based U.S. Magistrate Judge Benjamin Cheeks to a lifetime position as a district court judge in the Southern District of California.

With Cheeks’ confirmation, 63 Black federal jurists have been confirmed under Biden, a record tally for a president that includes the nation’s first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

She is now part of the three-member liberal minority on the Supreme Court, which swung to a 6-3 conservative majority after Trump’s appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Biden also named fewer judges to the 13 appeals courts that sit below the Supreme Court, which have the final say on the bulk of cases. Biden named 45 while Trump appointed 54, 19 of whom filled seats once held by Democratic-appointed judges.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Richard Chang and Leslie Adler)

source

By Pete Schroeder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr has sought legal advice to explore his options against any attempts by President-elect Donald Trump to remove him, sources said, the latest sign that a conflict might be looming between the incoming administration and the central bank.

Barr, who was tapped to serve as the Fed’s top regulatory official by President Joe Biden, has in recent weeks sought advice from law firm Arnold & Porter in his personal capacity, two of the sources said.

The sources said he has sought counsel in a personal capacity because typically individual officials, not their agencies, have legal standing to fight in court attempts to remove them.

The Fed declined to comment via a spokesperson. Representatives for Arnold & Porter and the Trump transition did not respond to requests for comment. Barr did not respond to a call or email requesting comment.

Barr, whose term overseeing bank supervision expires in July 2026, has told Congress that he intends to serve it out. Reuters could not learn further details about Barr’s discussions with lawyers, including whether he would fight his removal or not.

The sources requested anonymity to speak about Barr’s plans.

Barr’s move comes after reports in recent months that Trump’s advisers were looking for ways to increase the incoming White House’s sway over the Fed, alarming officials and investors who argue that the central bank’s independence is necessary for it to be able to properly set monetary policy.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell — who was appointed to the role by Trump only to be subsequently criticized for his decisions on interest rates — was seen as a target of the incoming president. But Powell said after the November presidential election that Trump would not have the authority to remove him. Trump subsequently said he does not intend to remove Powell.

The law establishing the Fed says the president is only allowed to fire Fed governors for cause, but it is silent on whether Trump would have the power to demote Barr from his role as Vice Chair for Supervision. Powell has previously said demoting Fed officials is not permitted under the law.

Barr has earned powerful critics on Wall Street and elsewhere for his tough approach to financial regulation.

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page argued Trump should fire him for cause, citing the failures by bank supervisors to address problems ahead of Silicon Valley Bank’s abrupt failure in March 2023.

Trump’s advisers and other Republicans have debated pursuing that approach with Barr, according to two of the sources, who were briefed on the matter.

Barr’s decision to explore outside legal counsel underscores how seriously he is taking that threat.

WALL STREET’S IRE

Barr earned the ire of Republicans and the banking industry for his efforts to impose strict new capital rules on the industry via so-called “Basel III Endgame” and other projects.

Barr said the sector needed more guardrails against future turmoil, but those efforts were met with intense pushback from banks, who argued they were unjustified and threatened to sue over what they claimed was improper procedure.

Barr eventually agreed to pare back those efforts, but a rewritten proposal never advanced due to infighting among U.S. bank regulators.

If Barr were to stay, he likely would not be able to advance tough new rules that would require buy-in from other agencies taken over by Trump appointees, but he could stand in the way of regulatory easing sought by big Wall Street banks.

While Trump has said little on bank regulation, his campaign has promised to slash “burdensome” regulations.

Barr also has a separate 14-year term as Fed governor that runs until 2032, but officials frequently step down from that post before serving the full allotment, particularly if they had previously served in a more senior role.

There is no precedent for a president to try to remove a Fed official. But messy succession fights at regulatory agencies are not unfamiliar territory for Trump. In his first term, his administration was challenged in court over his attempts to name new leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

There, the agency’s deputy, Leandra English, resisted efforts to install an outside Republican official as leader of the agency, going so far as to challenge the move in court on a personal basis. She eventually dropped that suit and resigned.

(Reporting by Pete Schroeder; Editing by Michelle Price, Paritosh Bansal, Alistair Bell and Anna Driver)

source

(Washington, DC) – Veering toward a midnight Friday government shutdown, House Speaker Mike Johnson is proposing a new plan that would temporarily fund federal operations and disaster aid, but punts President-elect Donald Trump demands for a debt limit increase into the new year.

On Thursday, the House rejected Trump’s new plan to fund operations and suspend the debt ceiling, as Democrats and dozens of Republicans refused to accommodate his sudden demands.

Here’s the latest:

Johnson says House Republicans have agreed on a new spending deal

House Speaker Mike Johnson says Republicans had reached a consensus on a deal to fund the government but provided no details on its contours.

“We have a unified Republican Conference. There is a unanimous agreement in the room that we need to move forward,” Johnson told reporters as he exited a House GOP conference meeting.

“I will not telegraph to you the specific details of that yet, because I’ve got a couple of things I got to wrap up in a few moments upstairs, but I expect that we will be proceeding forward,” he said.

“We will not have a government shutdown,” Johnson declared.

The speaker added that lawmakers “will meet our obligations for our farmers who aid for the disaster victims all over the country, and for making sure that military and essential services and everyone who relies upon the federal government for a paycheck is paid over the holidays. I’ll give you the more details here in just a few moments.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise gives an update

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., told reporters Republicans are still debating the contours of a new budget deal but “ultimately we will bring something to the floor, either through a suspension or a rule, and we’re making that decision.”

Scalise noted that they were examining the role of the debt ceiling in a potential deal but didn’t elaborate further.

When asked whether Trump was briefed on the plan, Scalise replied: “The president’s very interested in how his administration will start in January. So we want to be on a footing for success, so that we can move that agenda through. We have a very bold agenda that starts in January.”

Will funding turmoil cost House Speaker Mike Johnson his job?

There’s been plenty of criticism leveled at House Speaker Mike Johnson this week as Congress struggles to avert a government shutdown, and at least one Republican lawmaker says he won’t vote for Johnson to remain as speaker next year.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime critic of Johnson, told reporters his determination to oppose Johnson has only been cemented by the speaker’s latest decision to depend on Democrats to pass a government funding bill. Republicans will have a thin majority next year, meaning Johnson can only lose a few votes in the speaker election on Jan. 3.

“I’m not going to vote for him for speaker,” said Massie. “This whole exercise demonstrates that he has a hard time making decisions, he comes up with ideas that don’t work and then we just kind of wander around trying to find a path forward until he figures out what” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries will accept.

It’s also not clear whether — and how strongly — President-elect Donald Trump will back Johnson.

source

(Reuters) – President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to repeal Joe Biden’s signature climate bill called the Inflation Reduction Act, which initially aimed at some $400 billion in new spending and tax cuts and credits at accelerating America’s transition to a green energy economy.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the cost to swell above $800 billion due to higher-than-expected demand for the tax credits; much of the direct funding has already been spent.

Rescinding or revamping the bill, which was passed in August of 2022 without a single Republican vote, would likely require an act of Congress. Industry groups including utilities and some elected Republicans in Congress are pushing for clean energy credits and other provisions to be preserved, while the pharmaceutical industry is asking for tweaks.

Trump advisers, meanwhile, have made a series of recommendations already that the Trump administration is expected to consider. Here’s how industries and consumers could be impacted.

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: UNDER THREAT

The IRA provided $14.2 billion in incentives for purchasing emissions-free vehicles, such as electric vehicles, with income limits, and for installing alternative fueling equipment. It also created $2.9 billion in loans and grants for hybrid, electric and hydrogen cars.

Trump advisers are recommending redirecting money now flowing to building charging stations and making EVs affordable into national-defense priorities.

Trump plans to kill the $7,500 consumer tax credit for electric vehicle purchase.

The IRA also established $2.9 billion in loans and grants for the production of hybrid, electric and hydrogen fueled cars.

The IRA provided $3 billion for zero-emission U.S. postal mail trucks. The Trump team is considering canceling contracts to electrify the fleet.

CLEAN FUEL AND EMISSIONS STANDARDS: UNCLEAR

The IRA allocated $13.2 billion to promote clean hydrogen production and created $8.6 billion in new credits for low-carbon car and airplane fuels, and extended credits for biodiesel and other renewable fuels.

Aviation officials fear the rollback of green jet fuel credits and the Biden administration has yet to finalize the rules for the credits and may not before Trump takes office on Jan. 20.

WIND, SOLAR, NUCLEAR: UNCLEAR

The IRA created $62.7 billion in new tax credits for emissions-free electricity sources and storage, including wind, solar, geothermal and advanced nuclear and extended $51.1 billion in existing tax credits for wind and solar power

It also created $30 billion in tax credits to help existing nuclear reactors from closing.

While Trump has expressed scepticism about wind and solar power, so far this part of the IRA has not been targeted with any specific recommendations. Jobs and economic benefits have been heavy in Republican-voting states, making serious changes unlikely.

ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE: UNCLEAR

The IRA included billions aimed at updating the U.S.’s overloaded power grid and getting new forms of energy online.

It spent $6.8 billion to update and expand lending programs aimed at boosting efficiency in energy generation and transmission, created $3.2 billion in tax credits for carbon capture and storage and provided $2.3 billion in loans and grants to finance electricity transmission, including for offshore wind energy generation.

MANUFACTURING

The IRA creates $37 million in new incentives for companies to manufacture clean energy technologies in the U.S. rather than abroad, through tax credits and the Defense Production Act. The U.S. Treasury has included related industries

It also spent $5.3 billion to help reduce emissions from energy-intensive industries, such as concrete production.

POOR, RURAL COMMUNITIES: UNCLEAR

The IRA creates a $20 billion “Green Bank” for energy investments, with a focus on poor and disadvantaged communities and spends $14.8 billion monitoring and reducing pollution, and in grants for disadvantaged neighborhoods.

It also includes $13.2 billion for investments in clean energy technology in rural areas.

ENERGY-EFFICIENT BUILDINGS: UNCLEAR

The IRA establishes $9 billion in rebates and grants for residential buildings and extends and increases $37 billion in tax credits for energy-efficient properties.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING: UNDER THREAT

The bill provides $16.7 billion in new funding for agricultural practices that improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses and decrease emissions.

House Republicans have proposed rescinding $14.4 billion of this funding in a draft farm bill that would make the money available to a broader range of agriculture conservation practices.

CLIMATE RESILIENCE: UNCLEAR

The bill provides $4.8 billion to help reduce risk of wildfires, $4.6 billion to combat droughts and $4.6 billion in investments in coastal areas and weather forecasting resources

It also spends $4.2 billion in federal research and funding for FEMA, DOE and Homeland Security.

(Reporting By Jarrett Renshaw, Heather Timmons, Leah Douglas, Valerie Volcovici and Andy Sullivan; Editing by Alistair Bell)

source

By James Oliphant

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Mike Johnson’s hold on the speakership of the U.S. House of Representatives has been tenuous almost since the day he was elected.

The Louisiana Republican only ended up with the job in October 2023 after the unruly members of his House caucus deposed then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy and cast about for someone who could amass enough votes to replace him. He won after three other candidates fell short during a tumultuous three-week period that brought the House to a halt.

The soft-spoken Johnson, 52, had never served in the higher levels of House leadership before. His decision to move forward with a massive bipartisan spending bill in December to keep the government funded drew intense fire from hard-right members of his party – and most importantly, President-elect Donald Trump.

Trump told House Republicans to scrap the first bill on Wednesday and a second version Johnson negotiated on Thursday failed in a vote on the House floor when 38 Republicans rejected Trump’s demand to lift the federal government’s debt ceiling and the measure Johnson had spent a day negotiating.

That left Johnson and his allies scrambling to find another way to avoid a Christmas shutdown, something Republican leaders had hoped to prevent given that they take control of both the House and the Senate next month.

“With such a narrow majority, he has done good a job and survived longer than expected until this huge miscalculation on the (bill),” said Ron Bonjean, a longtime Republican consultant in Washington. “However, it’s difficult to imagine anyone else being successful in this position with an ungovernable conference and little room to navigate with such a divided House.”

Johnson told reporters on Friday that he was plotting next steps, saying “We have a plan.”

When the next Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, Johnson must stand for re-election – and it won’t be easy. His initial majority will be just 219-215, narrower than its current 219-211.

Assuming no Democrat votes for Johnson, he will have almost no breathing room with which to work. Already two Republicans, Representatives Paul Gosar and Thomas Massie, have said they won’t back him. Another caucus hardliner, Marjorie Taylor Greene, on Thursday floated the idea of picking a new leader.

Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday, while he huddled with allies to try to plot a course forward.

Whether others stick with Johnson will depend on whether he can somehow pull off a new spending bill that contains Republican priorities but omits Democratic ones. That is a formidable high-wire act, given that Democratic votes may be needed to pass the bill in the House and definitely will in the Senate, where Democrats currently hold a 51-49 majority.

Thursday’s failed vote sharply increases the odds that parts of the federal government will begin to shut down on Saturday.

TIED TO TRUMP

Johnson had tried to dodge this scenario by supporting Trump at every turn during his presidential bid and becoming a fixture at his events. Most recently, he met with Trump at Saturday’s Army-Navy college football game even as the funding measure was being hashed out. 

But for Trump, loyalty has mostly been a one-way street. He will stand by his political allies when it serves his interest, but as McCarthy found out, he is willing to sacrifice them if necessary.

McCarthy engendered the wrath of the caucus’ conservatives by striking a budget deal with President Joe Biden in much the same manner that Johnson attempted to do with his funding plan. Both leaders discovered that satisfying both mainstream and hardline Republicans is a nearly impossible task. 

Following McCarthy’s history-making ouster, several Republicans, including hardline conservative Jim Jordan and more establishment-oriented choices Tom Emmer and Steve Scalise failed to attract enough support to win the speakership.

Johnson, a low-profile Christian conservative lawyer from northwest Louisiana who was far down the leadership roster, emerged as a compromise choice. 

Almost immediately, Johnson’s tenure was embattled. In April, he was forced to rely on Democratic votes to pass a sweeping aid package for Ukraine, a measure opposed by the hardliners in his caucus. Even then there was talk among them of replacing him.

Should Johnson somehow survive and serve another term as speaker, it likely will be only due to Trump’s support. And then from that point on, Johnson will owe the new president his political life.

(Reporting by James Oliphant, additional reporting by Bo Erickson and Katharine Jackson; Editing by Scott Malone, Alistair Bell and Daniel Wallis)

source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Congress was scrambling to avert a partial government shutdown on Friday, hours after more than three dozen Republicans rejected a demand by President-elect Donald Trump to use the measure to lift the nation’s debt ceiling.

Republican House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson was trying to plot a course that could pass both his chamber, with narrow Republican control, and the Democratic-majority Senate, as a midnight Friday (0500 GMT Saturday) funding deadline loomed.

“We have a plan,” Johnson told reporters at the Capitol on Friday. “We’re expecting votes this morning.”

Conservative Republicans on Thursday rejected Trump’s demand to lift the debt limit, which could add trillions more to the government’s $36 trillion in debt. 

Trump, who takes office in one month, overnight ratcheted up his rhetoric, calling for a five-year suspension of the U.S. debt ceiling even after members of his party’s right flank balked at an earlier two-year extension.

“Congress must get rid of, or extend out to, perhaps, 2029, the ridiculous Debt Ceiling. Without this, we should never make a deal,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform shortly after 1 a.m.

An earlier bipartisan deal was scuttled after Trump and his ally Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, came out against it on Wednesday. A hastily revised alternative backed by Trump then failed by a vote of 174-235 Thursday night.

That revised measure generally would keep the roughly $6.2 trillion federal budget running at its current level through March and provided $100 billion in disaster relief. But it dropped other measures included to appease Democrats, who still control the U.S. Senate and the White House for four more weeks.

The White House has said President Joe Biden opposed the reworked bill.

Previous fights over the debt ceiling have spooked financial markets, as a U.S. government default would send credit shocks around the world. The limit has been suspended under an agreement that technically expires on Jan. 1, though lawmakers likely would not have had to tackle the issue before the spring.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Scott Malone and Chizu Nomiyama)

source

By Jack Queen

(Reuters) – U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is making good on his threats to go after the media in court, with several recent lawsuits seeking damages against major publishers over what he describes as false or misleading coverage.

Here is a look at five of the cases and where they stand: 

DES MOINES REGISTER POLL LAWSUIT 

Trump on Monday sued the Des Moines Register and its former pollster J. Ann Selzer in Iowa state court over an opinion poll published ahead of the Nov. 5 U.S. election showing Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris leading Trump by 3 percentage points in Iowa.

Trump, a Republican who ultimately won Iowa, accused the Register and Selzer of engaging in “brazen election interference” by manipulating the poll and leaking it to Democratic operatives before publication. 

A spokesperson for the Des Moines Register acknowledged that “the poll did not reflect the ultimate margin” of Trump’s victory in Iowa, but said “we stand by our reporting on the matter and believe a lawsuit would be without merit.” 

The lawsuit also names the Register’s parent company Gannett and accuses the defendants of violating Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, which makes it illegal to use deceptive or misleading practices in connection with the sale or advertisement of goods. 

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an order that would bar the defendants from “deceptive and misleading acts” related to the poll and compel them to disclose all information related to it. 

ABC ‘RAPE’ COMMENTS LAWSUIT 

ABC News settled a defamation suit brought by Trump on Dec. 14, agreeing to donate $15 million to his presidential library and issue a statement saying it regretted comments about Trump made by anchor George Stephanopolous. 

Trump alleged in the lawsuit filed in March in federal court in Florida that Stephanopolous defamed him by saying he had been found liable for “rape.” 

Stephanoplous was referring to a civil case brought against Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a New York department store in the 1990s. A jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse but not rape, which is a separate offense under New York state law. 

Trump has denied assaulting Carroll. He is appealing the judgment, as well as a jury verdict finding him liable for defaming Carroll in a separate case she filed over the same alleged incident. 

U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami had denied ABC’s initial motion to dismiss the case, though that did not necessarily mean Trump would have won. 

An ABC News spokesperson said in a statement that the network was pleased that the parties had reached an agreement to dismiss the lawsuit.

CBS ‘60 MINUTES’ HARRIS INTERVIEW LAWSUIT

Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview with then-presidential candidate Harris to “tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party” in the election. 

CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas.

Trump alleged CBS’s editing of the interview violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal to use false, misleading or deceptive acts in commerce. 

“Millions of Americans, including residents of Texas and this district, were confused and misled by the two doctored Interview versions,” the lawsuit says. 

CBS said in a statement that the lawsuit is meritless and that it did not doctor the interview or hide any parts of Harris’ answers. 

CBS filed a motion to dismiss on Dec. 6, saying the lawsuit should be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction or at least transferred to New York.

Trump’s lawyers have not yet responded. 

SIMON & SCHUSTER RECORDING COPYRIGHTLAWSUIT 

Trump sued Simon & Schuster in federal court in Florida in January 2023, accusing the book publisher and author Bob Woodward of violating copyright laws through “systematic usurpation, manipulation, and exploitation” of audio recordings of Trump that the veteran journalist gathered during interviews. 

Trump accuses the defendants of illegally profiting from the recordings by distributing them without his permission and taking them out of context to cast him in a poor light. He seeks unspecified damages. 

Simon & Schuster and Woodward said in a statement that the lawsuit was meritless and that the interviews were on the record and recorded with Trump’s consent. The publisher is trying to get the case moved to a federal court in New York.

Discovery in the case has been put on hold while a judge weighs whether it was brought in the proper court. 

In a Tuesday court filing, Trump’s lawyers told a judge they hope Simon & Schuster would “follow Mr. Stephanopoulos’ expression of contrition,” adding that Trump’s election win has led to “renewed accountability among those who violated his rights over the last four years.” 

CNN ‘BIG LIE’ DEFAMATION LAWSUIT 

A federal judge in July 2023 dismissed a $475 million defamation lawsuit Trump brought against CNN over the network’s use of the term “the big lie” to describe his false claims that he won the 2020 election and allegedly comparing him to Adolf Hitler. 

In his October 2022 suit in a federal court in Florida, Trump argued that CNN’s repeated use of “big lie” and the Hitler comparison in a January 2022 special report were intended to “aggravate, scare, and trigger people.” 

U.S. District Judge Raag Singhal in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, found that CNN’s use of “big lie” and the comparisons to Hitler were opinions, not facts.

“Being ‘Hitler-like’ is not a verifiable statement of fact that would support a defamation claim,” Singhal said. 

Trump is appealing the order. 

(Reporting by Jack Queen; editing by Amy Stevens and Jonathan Oatis)

source