Senate fails to pass short-term funding bill that would avert government shutdown
The Republican-controlled Senate has failed to pass a short-term funding bill that would prevent a government shutdown at the end of the month.
Earlier, continuing resolution (CR) cleared the House, but ultimately stalled in the upper chamber – unable to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster.
Democrats remain resolute that they will continue to block any bill if it doesn’t include significant amendments to health care provisions. Today, senator John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania, was the lone Democrat to vote for the GOP-drawn CR. While Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, joined their colleagues across the aisle and voted no.
Key events
Here’s a recap of the day so far
-
On Capitol Hill today, a flurry of action and inaction, after the House passed a stopgap funding bill – written by Republicans to stave off a government shutdown – only for Democrats to reject it in the Senate. In kind, GOP lawmakers blocked a Democratic version of the bill. Funding expires at the end of September, and with congressional lawmakers on recess next week the threat of a shutdown is perilously close.
-
In response, legislators from both sides of the aisle have spent the day shirking blame and claiming the other party would be responsible for a shutdown on 1 October. Senate majority leader John Thune said that “Democrats are yielding to the desires of their rabidly leftist base and are attempting to hold government funding hostage to a long list of partisan demands.” While his counterpart, Chuck Schumer said that Republicans “want” the shutdown to happen. “They’re in the majority. They don’t negotiate, they cause the shutdown – plain and simple,” he said.
-
Also on the Hill today, a resolution honoring murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support, but only after causing considerable consternation among Democrats. All Republicans in attendance voted in favor of the resolution, which describes Kirk as “a courageous American patriot, whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence”. Ninety five Democrats supported the resolution, while 58 opposed it. Several Democrats who opposed the resolution said they condemned Kirk’s murder, and political violence at large, but could not support a figure who used his speech.
-
Meanwhile, a federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s $15bn defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over its content. US district judge Steven Merryday said Trump violated a federal procedural rule requiring a short and plain statement of why he deserves relief. He gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint, and reminded the administration it was “not a protected platform to rage against an adversary”.
-
The Trump’s administration also asked the supreme court on Friday to intervene in a bid to refuse to issue passports to transgender and non-binary Americans that reflect their gender identities. It’s one of several disputes in regard to an executive order Trump signed after returning to office in January that directs the government to recognize only two biologically distinct sexes: male and female. A lower court judge had blocked the policy earlier this year, and an appeals court let the judge’s ruling stay in place.
-
And on foreign policy, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping “made progress on many very important issues” during their call this morning, according to a Truth Social post from the president. Trump said that the pair discussed “trade, fentanyl, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and the TikTok deal”. The president also said he and Xi would have a face-to-face meeting at the APEC summit in South Korea next month, he would travel to China “in the early part of next year”, and Xi would also come to the US at a later date.
Stephanie Kirchgaessner
A top donor to Donald Trump and other Maga Republicans has privately mocked the US president’s longtime position that he has an upper hand in trade negotiations with China, in a sign that even some loyal supporters have been uneasy with the White House strategy.
Liz Uihlein, the billionaire businesswoman who co-founded office supply company Uline with her husband, Richard, sent an email to her staff earlier this year that contained a cartoon in which Trump can be seen playing cards with Chinese president Xi Jinping. In the cartoon, Trump claims: “I hold the cards”, to which Xi responds: “The cards are made in China.”
The email, seen by the Guardian, appears to have been sent in April by an administrative assistant on Liz Uihlein’s behalf. Uihlein prefaced the cartoon with a short remark: “All – The usual. Liz”.
The barb is significant because it was sent by an important political ally to Trump and his movement. Liz and Richard Uihlein were the fourth largest political donors in the presidential election cycle, having given $143m to Republicans, according to Opensecrets, which tracks political giving.
A Uline spokesperson said Liz Uihlein had no comment. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
Former US attorney who negotiated Epstein’s ‘sweetheart deal’ appears before Oversight committee in closed-door deposition
Also on Capitol Hill today, Alex Acosta, the former US attorney for southern Florida who also served as the labor secretary during the first Trump administration, testified before lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee today in a closed-door deposition.
Acosta negotiated the deal in 2008 that saw Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty and receive no federal charges for soliciting minors. At the time he was sentenced to a 13 month prison sentence in a county jail and received various work privileges.
Then, in 2019, Epstein was eventually charged with federal sex trafficking crimes, which shone the spotlight back on Acosta – now the labor secretary under Trump – who resigned from his cabinet position.
The 2008 plea deal has come up again throughout the Oversight committee’s investigation into the handling of the Epstein case. Democrats on the committee have called it a “sweetheart deal”, and after today’s deposition several of those lawmakers characterised Acosta was “evasive and non-credible”.
“It’s very difficult to get straightforward answers out of him regarding what happened during this time, what he knew of the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein,” said congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, a Democrat who sits on the Oversight committee.
Earlier today, Republican congressman James Comer said that the committee, which he chairs, has begun receiving documents from the treasury department relating to the Epstein case.
“When we met with the victims, and we said, ‘what can we do to expedite this investigation to be able to provide justice for you all?’, they said, ‘follow the money, follow the money’,” Comer told reporters today.
A reminder, government funding lapses on 30 September. The Senate isn’t back from recess until 29 September, meaning that any vote to avoid a shutdown would need to happen less than 48 hours before the deadline.
Both parties blame the other as potential of government shutdown looms
In response, congressional Democrats just wrapped a press conference where they said that any blame for a government shutdown lays squarely at the feet of their Republican colleagues.
“The bare minimum here is for Republican leadership to simply sit down with Democratic leadership to hammer out a path forward. Now they’re leaving town instead of sitting down with Democrats,” said Democratic senator Patty Murray, who serves as the vice-chair of the Senate appropriations committee.
Minority leader Chuck Schumer said today that plans by House lawmakers to not return from recess until 1 October – effectively stymieing Democrat’s hopes of negotiations before government funding expires at the end of this month – was proof that Republicans “want” the shutdown to happen.
“They’re in the majority. They don’t negotiate, they cause the shutdown – plain and simple,” Schumer added.
Top Republican senator says ‘ball’ to keep government funded is in Democrats’ court
Per my last post, on the Senate floor today, majority leader John Thune said he is unlikely to call back lawmakers next week (when Congress is on recess). Instead, he shirked any blame for government funding expiring, and said the“ball is in the Democrats’ court” now.
“I can’t stop Democrats from opposing our nonpartisan continuing resolution. If they want to shut down the government, they have the power to do so,” the South Dakota Republican said. “If they think they’re going to gain political points from shutting down the government over a clean, non partisan CR, something they voted for 13 times under the Biden administration, I would strongly urge them to think again.”
Senate fails to pass short-term funding bill that would avert government shutdown
The Republican-controlled Senate has failed to pass a short-term funding bill that would prevent a government shutdown at the end of the month.
Earlier, continuing resolution (CR) cleared the House, but ultimately stalled in the upper chamber – unable to reach the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster.
Democrats remain resolute that they will continue to block any bill if it doesn’t include significant amendments to health care provisions. Today, senator John Fetterman, of Pennsylvania, was the lone Democrat to vote for the GOP-drawn CR. While Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky, joined their colleagues across the aisle and voted no.
Senate rejects Democrats’ alternative stopgap funding measure
As expected, the Senate has rejected congressional Democrats’ alternative to the short-term funding bill that passed the House earlier – which was drafted by Republicans.
The version by Democrats kept the government funded for a month, and had a number of health care provisions baked in. It also included measures that would stop Donald Trump from clawing back appropriated funds.
The House passed bill is up next. We’ll bring you that update as we get it.
Education department issues ‘denial of access’ letter to Harvard, citing failure to provide admissions data
The department of education has issued a ‘denial of access’ letter to Harvard University, claiming that the institution has failed to “provide documents and information” as part of the ongoing investigation by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to determine if the university “is illegally considering race in its undergraduate admissions process”.
“The highest court in our nation ruled conclusively that Harvard was illegally using extreme racial preferencing in their admissions processes,” said education secretary Linda McMahon, referring to the supreme court’s 2023 decision that said race based admissions policies violated the Equal Protection Cause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “For all their claims, they [Harvard] refuse to provide evidence necessary for the Department to make that determination. What are they hiding?”
In a statement, the education department said that Harvard has 20 calendar days to provide the OCR with the requisite data or “face further enforcement action”.
Harvard, the oldest and wealthiest university in the US, has been the frequent target of the Trump administration since the president returned to the White House. Earlier this year, the university fought back and sued the administration for its cuts to federal funding.
Carter Sherman
In a surprise move, the influential committee that advises the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine policy decided Friday morning to drop a planned vote on whether to immunize all newborns against hepatitis B, an incurable infection that can lead to liver disease and death.
The CDC has recommended that all US-born babies receive the first of three shots against hepatitis B shortly after birth for more than 30 years. Over that time frame, the lethal illness has virtually vanished among American children. Yet the panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), had intended to vote on recommending whether to delay the first shot until a child is at least a month old, as long as the child’s mother does not have hepatitis B.
While parents could still choose to get their baby vaccinated at birth, the committee’s recommendations typically determine which vaccines are provided free of charge through the US government, shape state and local laws around vaccine requirements, and influence which vaccines health insurers tend to cover.
But rather than proceeding, the vote over hepatitis B descended into confusion, as some members pointed out inconsistencies in the wording of the vote and suggested that they would prefer to recommend delaying the hepatitis B vaccine until even later in a child’s life. Although voting had begun, the members ultimately decided to postpone the vote until at least their next meeting.
The committee’s two-day meeting, which started on Thursday, has already sparked intense debate. After Robert F Kennedy took control of the Department of Health and Human Services, he fired the previous iteration of the committee and replaced it with his own handpicked advisers. Some of whom have little to no documented experience with vaccines, while others have criticized them.
The members’ lack of experience with the panel’s workings became evident on Thursday, when some of its members seemed unsure of what they were voting on and were unfamiliar with Vaccines for Children, a US government program that provides free vaccines to low-income children.
The panel did, however, vote to recommend that children receive multiple vaccines against mumps, measles, rubella and varicella – or chicken pox – rather than a combined vaccine, as was previously recommended. Parents could already decide to give their children separate vaccines, and many do.
On Thursday, the panel had voted to let Vaccines for Children continue providing coverage for the combined vaccine if parents want it. On Friday morning, however, the panel reversed that decision and instead voted to recommend that Vaccines for Children no longer do so.
Julius Constantine Motal
Photos: mass arrests outside immigration court in New York
Per that last post, here are some of the images of local elected officials and immigration rights activists who protested outside the Jacob K Javits Federal Building, New York’s largest federal immigration court, on Thursday.
See more images in our gallery here.
Yesterday, New York lawmakers, immigrants’ rights activists and religious leaders were arrested at protests both inside and outside the complex in lower Manhattan where federal officials have been routinely detaining immigrants amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda.
Eleven elected New York officials tried to gain access to an Ice detention facility, while immigration activists tried to block vans carrying detained migrants.
Here’s the story in pictures:
Judge strikes Trump’s $15bn lawsuit against New York Times over its content
A federal judge has struck Donald Trump’s $15bn defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over its content.
US district judge Steven Merryday said Trump violated a federal procedural rule requiring a short and plain statement of why he deserves relief, and that a complaint is not “a public forum for vituperation and invective” or “a protected platform to rage against an adversary”.
Merryday gave Trump 28 days to file an amended complaint.
House passes bipartisan resolution honoring Charlie Kirk
Chris Stein
A resolution honoring murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support on Friday, but only after causing considerable consternation among Democrats.
All Republicans in attendance voted in favor of the resolution, which describes Kirk as “a courageous American patriot, whose life was tragically and unjustly cut short in an act of political violence”.
Ninety five Democrats supported the resolution, while 58 opposed it. Thirty eight voted present, and 22 did not vote.
Kirk was instrumental in building support for Donald Trump and conservative causes among younger voters, often by using racist and discriminatory language and arguments.
Several Democrats who opposed the resolution said they condemned his murder, but could not support a figure who used his speech.
“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake’, who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it,’” said New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who voted no.
She went on: “His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.”
“I cannot vote yes on this resolution because it grossly misrepresents Charlie Kirk’s methods, views, and beliefs while citing Christian nationalist language. I will always condemn heinous acts of violence, but this resolution ignores the false and hateful rhetoric that was too often present in his debates,” said Colorado’s Diana DeGette, who voted present.
Maryland’s Jamie Raskin said he voted yes on the measure because it “repeatedly condemns all political violence, extremism and hatred in unequivocal terms”, while adding: “We should overlook whatever surplus verbiage is contained in this resolution designed to make the vote difficult for Democrats. We cannot fall for that obvious political trap and should rise above it.”
Congressman Dan Goldman, who voted present said: “I condemn political violence of any kind, including the horrific assassination of Mr Kirk. I cannot vote no on a resolution that condemns political violence. I do not support – and indeed condemn in the strongest possible terms – many of the hateful views Mr Kirk espoused. I cannot vote yes on a resolution that celebrates those views.”
Reuters is reporting that a federal judge has struck Donald Trump’s $15bn lawsuit against the New York Times. I’ll bring you more on this as we get it.
Trump asks supreme court to enforce passport policy targeting transgender people
Donald Trump’s administration asked the supreme court on Friday to intervene in a bid to refuse to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans that reflect their gender identities.
Reuters reports that the justice department filed an emergency request to lift a federal judge’s injunction barring the state department from enforcing a policy it adopted at Trump’s direction.
The dispute is one of several concerning an executive order Trump signed after returning to office on 20 January directing the government to recognize only two biologically distinct sexes, male and female.
