U.S. President Donald Trump gestures after delivering remarks during a campaign and economic policy event in the Eugene Levy Fieldhouse at SUNY Rockland Community College on May 22, 2026, in Suffern, New York. (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that he isn’t concerned about making a deal soon with Iran, adding that he doesn’t “care about the midterms” in what he said he thinks is the regime’s calculation that he has to negotiate a deal before what are expected to be highly-competitive elections in November.
“They thought they were going to out-wait me, you know. ‘We’ll out-wait him. He’s got the midterms.’ I don’t care about the midterms. Look what happened last night, that was a prelude to the midterms. People understand it,” Trump said, likely referencing his endorsed candidate, Ken Paxton, winning the Senate Republican runoff in Texas.
With tensions escalating with Iran and gas prices still up across the country, Trump said he feels no urgency to end the war.
“Mr. President, you’ve said that you’re in no rush to make a deal, but with gas prices that are still high across the country, people are paying more for travel. Does that give you more urgency to make a deal? Why doesn’t it?” ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump during the Cabinet meeting.
“Well, I’ll tell you, the primary urgency, I’ve said this, it wasn’t covered properly, but the primary urgency is that we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump responded.
The president also appeared to issue a new threat against Oman, a key American ally in the Middle East.
Trump said he would not accept a short-term deal that allows Iran and Oman to control the Strait of Hormuz — as reported in Iranian state media, and that the critical shipping lane will be “open to everybody.”
“Oman will behave just like everybody else or we’ll have to blow them up. They understand that,” Trump said.
Trump on Wednesday was asked whether he would consider easing any sanctions on Iran. He said no.
“No, we’re not talking about any easing of sanctions or giving money. No sanctions, no money, no nothing,” Trump said. “We have control of money that they claim is theirs. We’ll keep control of that money. And when they behave properly and when they do what’s right, we’ll let them have their money. But right now, we’re not doing that … One thing is not contingent on the other.”
The comments come after a senior administration official told reporters over the weekend that Iran could be rewarded with a lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets in exchange for a deal on its nuclear program.
On the status of negotiations, Trump said on Wednesday he’s “not satisfied” and that Iran is “negotiating on fumes.”
“We’re not satisfied with it, but we will be. We will be. Either that or we’ll have to just finish the job,” Trump said.
Former president Joe Biden speaks at an event marking the 12th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in the East Room at the White House on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — Former President Joe Biden filed suit against the Justice Department on Tuesday in an effort to block the release of recordings and transcripts from interviews he gave for his memoir that were central to a special counsel probe regarding his handling of classified materials after his time as vice president.
The lawsuit follows an intervention by Biden in a separate lawsuit brought by the conservative Heritage Foundation over a FOIA request that sought records from the investigation by former special counsel Robert Hur.
The audio recordings and transcripts stem from interviews Biden did with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer for his 2017 memoir “Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose.”
The materials were obtained by the DOJ as part of the special counsel’s probe, which ended in February 2024, finding that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed” classified materials but recommending no criminal charges.
Biden’s lawsuit seeks to further bolster his demands that the materials not be shared with the conservative think tank or congressional Republicans, citing his right to privacy as well as allegations against DOJ that it is acting unlawfully in seeking an avenue to release the records.
“President Biden—like every American—has a right to privacy in personal conversations he had within his own home,” the lawsuit said. “That is particularly true here, where the Department obtained this information through a criminal investigation.”
Biden’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said the DOJ has indicated it will release the audio recordings and transcripts to both the Heritage Foundation and the House Judiciary Committee on June 15 unless a court order blocks the release.
The lawsuit details a frenzied effort and communications between Biden’s counsel and DOJ in recent weeks to walk through potential redactions and other issues surrounding release of the audio and transcripts.
While the DOJ and career attorneys during the Biden administration had taken the position that release of the materials was a clear departure from department norms, Biden’s attorneys said the current DOJ reversed its position without any formal explanation beginning in February.
The South Carolina State Capitol during a special session in Columbia, South Carolina, US, on Tuesday, May 19. (Sam Wolfe/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(COLUMBIA, S.C.) — The South Carolina Senate on Tuesday effectively killed a proposed congressional map that could have allowed Republicans to flip the seat held by Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn, a major rebuff to a mid-decade redistricting effort promoted by President Donald Trump.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The Alabama Capital Building in Montgomery, Alabama, U.S., on Saturday, Sept. 24, 2022. (Andi Rice/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A three-judge panel in a federal court in Alabama ruled unanimously on Tuesday that state Republicans are still blocked from using their 2023 congressional map, which would have potentially helped Republicans in November.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas. (Adobe Stock)
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — Voters in Texas go to the polls on Tuesday to decide the Republican nominee in a pivotal Senate race that could decide control of the Senate — and serves as a test of President Donald Trump’s influence.
Also on the ballot are several member-on-member matchups and a candidate, Maureen Galindo, who has already been condemned by top Democrats for her campaign’s controversial comments.
Trump weighs in on Texas Senate race
Trump’s last-minute endorsement in the Texas Senate primary runoff race of Attorney General Ken Paxton over incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn has shaken up a race that could become critical for the fight to control the Senate next year.
Cornyn narrowly led the field in March’s primary with 42% of the vote, followed by Paxton’s 40%, to make the runoff over GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt.
This comes after Trump’s endorsement power was proven to prevail in recent primaries — with the president successfully ousting non-endorsed incumbent Republicans this month, including Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy.
And while Trump has praised Cornyn as a “good man,” he made clear that he feels the senator was “not supportive” enough in the past. Cornyn is also backed by the campaign arm of Senate Republicans and many of his Senate colleagues have stood by his side despite the president’s endorsement, citing their belief that Paxton’s past controversies could put this safe Republican seat at risk.
The bitter Republican battle is also the most expensive primary runoff, according to AdImpact, after the race already made history as the most expensive Senate primary election in March. According to AdImpact, $100 million has been spent in the primary and $25 million has been spent for the runoff.
Texas House races
The Houston-area 18th Congressional District is no stranger to showing up to vote — this House seat has seen six elections in the last two years.
The deaths of the last two members to represent the district, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee and Sylvester Turner, left the district without representation for large swaths of time. Rep. Christian Menefee, the current representative for the district, has only served in office for a few months after winning the seat in a special election.
He faces off against Rep. Al Green, a longtime member of Congress, who represents the neighboring 9th District, which has been redrawn to favor Republicans.
In Dallas, another contentious Democratic primary pits a current member against a former one. Redistricting of nearby districts has drawn top candidates into the primary for the state’s 33rd Congressional District: Rep. Julie Johnson, who currently represents the neighboring Texas’ 32nd Congressional District, and Former Rep. Colin Allred, who left that seat in 2024 to run for Senate.
Texas’ 35th Congressional District features competitive runoffs on both the Republican and Democratic sides. The district was redrawn to favor Republicans, but Democrats hope low approval for Trump and a strong candidate could give them a fighting chance.
Galindo, who came in first in the March Democratic primary for the 35th District with 29% of the vote, has been the subject of major controversy for her campaign’s social media posts. A now-deleted Instagram post from her campaign read that Galindo will turn an ICE detention center “into a prison for American Zionists.” She has previously called for all candidates who take campaign contributions from Israel to be “tried for treason.” While she has not denied the comments, she has added that “putting billionaire Zionists in prison does not mean putting all Jews in internment camps.”
She was condemned by Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Suzan DelBene, who said Galindo’s “vile language” is “disqualifying and has no place in American Politics.”
The largest financial backer of Galindo’s campaign is a newly created Super PAC called “Lead Left.” Democrats have condemned Lead Left’s involvement in the race and accused Republicans of being behind the PAC — with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and DelBene last week calling on House Republican leaders to stop “propping up” Galindo and “forcefully condemn” her comments.
ABC News has reached out the National Republican Congressional Committee for comment.
Galindo’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment. She will face off against former Bexar County Sheriff’s Department Spokesman Johnny Garcia.
State Rep. John Lujan and Trump-endorsed Air Force veteran Carlos De La Cruz are facing off in the Republican runoff for the 118th Congressional District. They received 32% and 26% of the vote in March’s primary, respectively. Victory for Lujan could mark the first Trump-endorsed candidate to lose their primary this cycle.
Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, following a prime-time address to the nation in the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (Alex Brandon/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is resigning from her post, a source familiar confirmed to ABC News on Friday.
The news was first reported by Fox News.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on May 21, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump attacked outgoing Republican Sen. Thom Tillis on Friday, calling him a “RINO” — an acronym for “Republican in Name Only” — and a “quitter” as he appeared to acknowledge the ongoing revolt among some in his own party.
“I called him a ‘Nitpicker,’ always fighting against the Republican Party, and ME, mostly on things that didn’t matter,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
“Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!!!” Trump said.
Tillis is among several Republican lawmakers to criticize aspects of Trump’s agenda, most recently the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate those who allege they were wrongly targeted under the Biden administration. The fund was created as part of a settlement agreement in President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
Tillis slammed the fund as the “payout pot for punks.” Critics have said that those who committed violence against police, including Jan. 6 rioters, might be eligible for compensation in addition to Trump’s political allies.
“These people don’t deserve restitution, they — many of them deserve to be in prison,” Tillis said on Thursday. “Some of them deserve the pardon because they were over prosecuted, but this is, I mean, this is just stupid on stilts.”
Congressional Republicans on Thursday punted plans to advance a $70 billion immigration bill as Senate Republicans were poised to try to rein in spending for the so-called anti-weaponization fund, as well as Trump’s East Wing expansion and White House ballroom construction project.
Several Republicans who Trump has spurned have become the fund’s most outspoken critics, including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy. Cassidy lost his primary race last week after Trump endorsed his opponent.
“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X.
Trump on Friday suggested that Tillis’ choice to not run for reelection was in some part because Trump declined to give him an endorsement.
“When I told him that I would not, under any circumstances, endorse him for another run, too much work and drama (he couldn’t have won, anyway!), he immediately quit the race and publicly announced that he was going to ‘retire.’ I said, ‘Wow, great news, that was easy!'” Trump wrote in the post.
When Tillis announced last year that he wouldn’t run for reelection, he said is a statement that it was “not a hard choice” to rule out running for a third term as he was finished with “navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington.”
Tillis was asked by reporters on Thursday what he thought of Trump going after some Republican incumbents in primary races.
“Be careful what you ask for,” Tillis responded.
In defense of the fund, which has also drawn legal challenges, Trump on Friday claimed he “gave up a lot of money” by allowing it to move forward and that he could have made an “absolute fortune” if he hadn’t made the IRS settlement.
“Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE!,” Trump wrote in another social media post.
ABC News’ Isabella Murray and Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a ‘Rose Garden Club’ dinner for National Police Week in the Rose Garden at the White House on May 11, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Republicans are punting on plans to advance a $70 billion immigration bill, retreating after meeting with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to address concerns about the administration’s anti-weaponization fund.
The move pushes the process until at least after their weeklong Memorial Day recess after the House and Senate were sent home Thursday afternoon.
Earlier, Senate Republicans were poised to try to rein in two of President Donald Trump’s controversial spending wishes: $1 billion for the East Wing expansion and nearly $1.8 billion for an “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” two people familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News.
Blanche canceled pre-scheduled travel to go up to Capitol Hill to attempt to quell the growing Republican outrage over the “anti-weaponization fund,” which would be used to compensate allies who say they have suffered injustices at the hand of the Biden administration. But Blanche’s meeting seems to have completely backfired.
There was yelling in the room, multiple sources told ABC News, with some senators — even some vocal Trump supporters — telling Blanche they believed they’d lose the Senate majority over the fund.
Blanche even tried to placate Republican senators by releasing a fact sheet earlier Thursday that stated they themselves can apply to receive money from the fund.
Republicans are looking at ways to use the bill to impose guardrails on Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund.
On Wednesday afternoon, some Republicans told reporters that the $1 billion for White House security — including funding for the ballroom — would likely be removed from the bill because there was a lack of GOP support.
Because the text of the new bill hasn’t been made public, it’s not yet clear exactly what restrictions Republicans may try to impose on the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” the core of the settlement between the Department of Justice and Trump to resolve his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.
The taxpayer-funded pool of money will be administered by a five-person commission appointed by the acting attorney general with little oversight aside from the president, who could remove members.
Senators were working on potential provisions to address their concerns on the fund, but by Thursday afternoon, those discussions still appeared to be very far apart.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins said “no,” Blanche did not change her mind about the weaponization fund.
Republican Sen. John Hoeven said the “consensus building process” on the matter is “going to require more work.”
“We just don’t have the right configuration where we know we have 50 votes,” he said.
Republicans could try to embed guardrails for the fund in the actual bill, or they could instead try to offer an amendment addressing the fund once the bill is on the Senate floor.
However, if Republicans don’t do something, it is widely expected that Democrats will certainly try to.
Senate Republicans are aiming to muscle the $70 billion immigration enforcement package through using a budget tool called reconciliation, which will allow them to pass the bill with a simple majority of votes in the Senate instead of the usual 60 votes that it takes to approve most legislative matters.
But before the bill can pass, there will be a voting marathon known as a vote-a-rama, during which lawmakers are able to offer unlimited amendments to the bill.
Democrats are powerless to block this package from passing if Republicans stick together, but Democrats could put forward a number of amendments that force Republicans to take politically tricky votes.
If Republicans do not come up with a clear way to address the “anti-weaponization” fund in their underlying bill or in an amendment that is popular with Republicans who oppose the fund, Democratic-led amendments that look to restrict the fund could very well get the necessary GOP support to pass on the Senate floor.
Some Senate Republicans who Trump has publicly scorned in recent weeks have become the fund’s most outspoken critics, including Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost his primary race in Louisiana after Trump endorsed his opponent.
Cassidy spoke out on Wednesday night, bashing the fund.
“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability. This is adding to our national debt. If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide,” Cassidy wrote in a post on X.
Regardless of what Republicans do, Democrats are expected to use the vote-a-rama to force a number of votes that they hope will pin down Republicans on the fund.
Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal told ABC News on Wednesday that he intends to force votes on amendments to “stop this illegal abhorrent slush fund” during the vote-a-rama.
With enough GOP support, Democrats could have a real chance of putting restraints on — or even eliminating — this fund as part of the massive package. Depending on how Democrats craft their amendments surrounding the IRS fund, it could take as few as four Republican supporters to pass some of them.
What happened to the ballroom funding?
The $1 billion that was intended for White House security, including the security aspects of Trump’s ballroom, is being scrapped by Republicans, according to some GOP lawmakers. The Republican lawmakers are saying there isn’t enough support in their conference to move forward with the funding.
The Senate’s rule keeper said over the weekend that $1 billion could not be included in the bill under the Senate rules. Even though some Republicans initially said they’d redraft the measure, a number of GOP senators came out forcefully against the $1 billion allocation and threatened to tank the entire bill if it was not removed.
Democrats were expected to call up a number of amendment votes to try to strip the ballroom funding out of the bill. Those amendments only would have needed the support of four Republicans and likely would have passed.
Joseph Clifton Smith is shown in this booking photo released by the Alabama Department of Corrections. (Alabama Department of Corrections)
(WASHINGTON) — In a rare move on Thursday, the Supreme Court spared the life of an “intellectually disabled” death row inmate, dismissing an appeal by Alabama officials who claimed the man’s multiple IQ scores show he is competent and eligible for execution.
The justices were narrowly divided, 5-4, in allowing a lower court ruling to stand that determined death for Joseph Clifton Smith, a convicted first-degree murderer, would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of “cruel and unusual” punishment.
The high court did not formally explain its decision.
More than 20 years ago, the high court outlawed the execution of intellectually disabled people convicted of capital crimes.
The heart of the Smith case involved a dispute over who qualifies as intellectually disabled and how to analyze conflicting intelligence quotient – also known as IQ – test scores in making the determination.
The decision on Thursday left that question unanswered.
“The court is not equipped in this case to provide any meaningful guidance on how courts should assess multiple IQ scores,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
While state officials had asked the court to set out a clear standard, Sotomayor suggested a case-by-case approach, considering legal precedent and “the views of medical experts,” should continue.
“If a conflict among the states or lower courts emerges and a case properly presents the issue, it may be appropriate for this court to weigh in with more specific guidance,” she wrote. “The court rightly decides it is inappropriate to do so in this case.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented.
“The court shies away from its obligation to provide workable rules for capital cases,” Justice Alito wrote in a dissent joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and Roberts. “In doing so, the court disserves its own death-penalty jurisprudence, states’ criminal justice systems, lower courts, and victims of horrific murders.”
Justice Thomas wrote separately to call for a reinstatement of the death penalty for intellectually disabled people.
Smith, who will now spend life behind bars, confessed to a 1997 murder during a robbery, but challenged his death sentence on ground he has had “substantially subaverage intellectual functioning” since a young age.
He has taken five separate IQ tests over nearly 40 years, scoring 75 in 1979, 74 in 1982, 72 in 1998, 78 in 2014, and 74 in 2017.
People below 70 are generally considered to have an intellectual disability, but major American medical groups urge a holistic assessment that also looks at social and practical skills.
The groups note that standardized test scores alone should not be conclusive. Smith’s score of 72, for example, could be 69 when factoring the 3-point margin of error.
Smith, who alleges he suffered physical and verbal abuse as a child, consistently functioned at two grade-levels below his placement in school, according to court documents. Smith’s school classified him as “Educable Mentally Retarded” in 7th grade before he eventually dropped out.
Two lower federal courts ruled that a holistic analysis of Smith’s IQ scores and other evidence, including his behavioral history and school records, proved he is intellectually disabled.
“Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, and the Eighth Amendment does not override the death sentence he earned for murdering Durk Van Dam,” Alabama argued in its brief to the court. “Whether and how to weigh multiple IQ scores is left to state discretion.”
The state argued intellectual disability can only be proven by an IQ score of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence.
By one estimate, as many as 20% of the 2,100 people on death row in the U.S. may have some degree of intellectual disability, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a ‘Rose Garden Club’ dinner for National Police Week in the Rose Garden at the White House on May 11, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Republicans are poised to block funding for two of President Donald Trump’s controversial spending wishes: $1 billion for the East Wing expansion and nearly $1.8 billion for an “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” two people familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News.
Republicans are racing to put that package onto the Senate floor for votes as soon as Thursday evening, with hopes of sending it over to the House ahead of the Memorial Day recess and Trump’s June 1 deadline.
Republicans are looking at ways to use the bill to impose guardrails on Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund — which would be used to compensate allies who say they have suffered injustices at the hand of the Biden administration and has sparked a wave of criticism, the sources said.
On Wednesday afternoon, some Republicans told reporters that the $1 billion for White House security — including funding for the ballroom — would likely be removed from the bill because there was a lack of GOP support.
Because the text of the new bill hasn’t been made public, it’s not yet clear exactly what restrictions Republicans may try to impose on the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” the core of the settlement between the Department of Justice and President Trump to resolve his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.
The taxpayer-funded pool of money will be administered by a five-person commission appointed by the acting attorney general with little oversight aside from the president, who could remove members.
Republicans could try to embed guardrails for the fund in the actual bill, or they could instead try to offer an amendment addressing the fund once the bill is on the Senate floor.
However, if Republicans don’t do something, it is widely expected that Democrats will certainly try to.
Senate Republicans are aiming to muscle the $70 billion immigration enforcement package through using a budget tool called reconciliation, which will allow them to pass the bill with a simple majority of votes in the Senate instead of the usual 60 votes that it takes to approve most legislative matters.
But before the bill can pass, there will be a voting marathon known as a vote-a-rama, during which lawmakers are able to offer unlimited amendments to the bill.
Democrats are powerless to block this package from passing if Republicans stick together, but Democrats could put forward a number of amendments that force Republicans to take politically tricky votes.
If Republicans do not come up with a clear way to address the “anti-weaponization” fund in their underlying bill or in an amendment that is popular with Republicans who oppose the fund, Democratic-led amendments that look to restrict the fund could very well get the necessary GOP support to pass on the Senate floor.
Some Senate Republicans who Trump has publicly scorned in recent weeks have become the fund’s most outspoken critics, including Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost his primary race in Louisiana after Trump endorsed his opponent.
Cassidy spoke out on Wednesday night, bashing the fund.
“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the President and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability. This is adding to our national debt. If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide,” Cassidy wrote in a post on X.
Regardless of what Republicans do, Democrats are expected to use the vote-a-rama to force a number of votes that they hope will pin down Republicans on the fund.
Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal told ABC News on Wednesday that he intends to force votes on amendments to “stop this illegal abhorrent slush fund” during the vote-a-rama.
With enough GOP support, Democrats could have a real chance of putting restraints on — or even eliminating — this fund as part of the massive package. Depending on how Democrats craft their amendments surrounding the IRS fund, it could take as few as four Republican supporters to pass some of them.
What happened to the ballroom funding?
The $1 billion that was intended for White House security, including the security aspects of Trump’s ballroom, is being scrapped by Republicans, according to some GOP lawmakers. The Republican lawmakers are saying there isn’t enough support in their conference to move forward with the funding.
The Senate’s rule keeper said over the weekend that $1 billion could not be included in the bill under the Senate rules. Even though some Republicans initially said they’d redraft the measure, a number of GOP senators came out forcefully against the $1 billion allocation and threatened to tank the entire bill if it was not removed.
Democrats were expected to call up a number of amendment votes to try to strip the ballroom funding out of the bill. Those amendments only would have needed the support of four Republicans and likely would have passed.
What will the moderates and those scorned by Trump do?
Most, if not all Republican senators, are generally supportive of the immigration enforcement provisions in the package. It is likely that the final bill will ultimately pass.
But this vote-a-rama, which is an exercise that typically requires party discipline, comes at a time when Trump has been increasingly attacking incumbent members of the Senate Republican conference and potentially splintering the conference’s voting bloc.
Trump’s attacks could embolden some of those Republicans to break ranks on crucial amendment votes, and there are enough Republicans in this camp that certain Democratic amendments have the ability to pass if GOP leadership doesn’t do enough to satisfy its own members’ concerns.
