SLOW-WALK TO SHUTDOWN: Americans have long been able to shrug off the shutdown talk in Washington, D.C.
For several years, after all, the White House and Congress have flirted with a shutdown, only to reach a last-second deal.
As a result, many Americans may think an agreement will be reached before midnight on Sept. 30, the deadline for Trump and lawmakers to reach a deal to keep the government's lights on.
But there are plenty of good reasons to think this time will be different, and that the rope-a-dope game lawmakers have played over the last few years will not lead them to avoid a lapse in funding starting Oct. 1.
Neither Trump nor Democratic leaders in Congress are sending signals that they are all that interested in reaching a deal.
"Well, this is all caused by the Democrats," Trump said Thursday when he was asked about the looming shutdown during an Oval Office event with Turkey's president.
He then brushed off the ask from Democrats — to extend subsides for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that are set to expire at the end of the year — before shifting the conversation to immigration.
"They asked us to do something that's totally unreasonable. They never change," Trump said, accusing Democrats of wanting to give money to people who immigrate to the country illegally.
Trump had already upped the stakes with the release of a memo from the White House budget office that suggests mass firings are a possibility if the government shuts down. It basically directs the agencies to permanently fire employees who would be furloughed and return once government funding is reestablished.
Democratic congressional leaders reacted to that threat with indignation.
"Listen Russ, you are a malignant political hack," House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote in response to the memo from Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. "We will not be intimidated by your threat to engage in mass firings."
"This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "These unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back, just like they did as recently as today."
The digging in by both sides does not bode well for an off-ramp to a shutdown, which would cause museums and national parks to close, and government workers across the country to go without pay.
Schumer's unique position in the talks is another reason to think there will be a shutdown this time.
The Democratic leader brought other members of his party behind a deal to prevent a shutdown earlier this year — at a cost to his reputation with Democrats. He's now under heavy pressure to fight back against Trump and the GOP, and it is difficult to imagine him voting for a funding bill next week.
If he does, it will give Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) another argument to use against him if she chooses to challenge Schumer for his Senate seat in a Democratic primary.
There is some hope for a deal.
Some Democrats like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) haven't ruled out backing the House-passed stopgap if leaders promise a vote on extending ACA subsidies later this year. She told Semafor that she believes there's "a number of ways to get this done" and satisfy both sides.
"I'm not going to draw a line in the sand and say it's got to be this way or that way," she told the outlet.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has criticized his party's strategy and would be likely to back the House GOP bill.
Each side appears to think the other will take the lion's share of the blame if there is a shutdown.
If both are equally confident in that view, it raises the odds the government really will shut down.
At that time, the public is likely to start to notice the negative impacts of a shutdown, and the issue will get more play in the news.
That will raise the pressure on both sides. But one is likely to get the majority of the blame.
This time, it's Democrats asking for an addition to the continuing resolution instead of the GOP, which has often demanded cuts to government spending.
Right now, it looks like both Democrats and Republicans are willing to take the risk that the other side will take the bigger lumps.
▪ The Hill: Gaming out the politics of a shutdown
▪ The Hill: Cracks form among Senate Democrats as Trump threatens big shutdown layoffs
▪ The Hill: Conservative leaders urge Trump to let healthcare tax credits expire
HEGSETH MEETING: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called for a rare gathering of hundreds of generals and admirals next week without publicizing details of the meeting's topic.
The Pentagon confirmed that Hegseth will address senior military leaders early next week but provided no additional details.
The Washington Post first reported about the meeting, which is expected to take place on Tuesday at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va. Those directed to attend were given short notice and no stated reason for it, the outlet reported.
The order was reportedly sent to almost all the military's top commanders around the world — all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or higher, their Navy equivalent and their top enlisted advisers. That's more than 800 generals or admirals.
The Hill's Ellen Mitchell reports that the news has caused alarm as a Defense secretary hasn't called for such a large gathering with the military's top officers in modern history. A meeting this large also would normally take months to plan, and prior notice would be given well in advance.
The order comes after Hegseth issued a directive to cut the number of general officers by 20 percent and as the Trump administration has fired numerous top leaders this year.
▪ The Hill: "Trump, Vance downplay Hegseth meeting with military leaders"
The meeting also comes as the Pentagon has faced scrutiny over its new restrictions for reporters covering the Defense Department.
The department asked reporters last week not to publish information that it hasn't authorized for release or risk losing access to the building. This includes information that isn't classified, the department said in a memo.
The Pentagon argued that this policy is necessary to protect national security and Defense Department personnel who could be in "jeopardy." It also said in the memo that it would limit where reporters are allowed to go in the building without an escort.
The new restrictions sparked widespread pushback from media organizations and lawmakers.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called the decision "so dumb that I have a hard time believing it's true."
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called it an "ill-advised affront to free speech and freedom of the press."
▪ The New York Times: "The Pentagon, the press and the fight to control national security coverage"
NEW TRUMP TARIFFS: Trump announced another round of tariffs that could hit a number of products hard, particularly pharmaceuticals with manufacturers that don't have plants in the U.S.
Trump said the country would institute 100 percent tariffs on any "branded or patented" pharmaceutical unless the company is building their manufacturing plant in the U.S. Companies breaking ground on a new facility or with a facility already under construction will be exempt, he said.
He separately announced a 50 percent tariff on all kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and associated products and a 30 percent tariff on upholstered furniture taking effect Oct. 1. A 25 percent tariff on "Heavy (Big!) Trucks" made outside the U.S. will also take effect.
The latest tariffs, already on top of the reciprocal tariffs Trump has instituted worldwide, could potentially cause backlash, particularly on pharmaceuticals. Experts have said tariffs on pharmaceuticals could make some drugs more difficult and more expensive to receive.
The latest announcement comes as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next month on whether Trump has the authority to issue his sweeping tariffs as he has done throughout his term.
TIKTOK DEAL: Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to approve a long-awaited deal to keep TikTok permanently available in the U.S.
The status of the popular social media platform was up in the air for months after a law that former President Biden signed that would ban the app in the U.S. unless its Chinese parent company ByteDance divested from it.
The law was supposed to go into effect nine months ago, but Trump repeatedly issued executive orders to extend the deadline while he tried to negotiate a deal. Originally a top critic of TikTok during the 2020 campaign, he emerged as one of its biggest cheerleaders last year and pledged to save access to it.
The deal will have a group of U.S. investors, including Oracle and Silver Lake, taking a majority stake in a new TikTok entity spun off from the current company. ByteDance will keep less than 20 percent in equity in compliance with the divest-or-ban law, The Hill's Julia Shapero reports.
Oracle will inspect and retrain a copy of the recommendation algorithm on U.S. user data and provide security for the new TikTok.
Trump's order declares that the deal meets the requirements under the law for "qualified divestiture" and postpones enforcement until Jan. 23, 2026 to complete the deal.
Trump said on Thursday that he had a "very good talk" with Chinese President Xi Jinping, saying he got the "go-ahead" from him. But whether the Chinese government is accepting of the terms is unclear.
▪ Time Magazine: "Trump Insists U.S. Version of TikTok Won't Favor MAGA Over Liberals"
No comments:
Post a Comment