Category: Politics

  • Pentagon Accepts $130 million Anonymous Trump Ally Donation to Fund Troops

    Pentagon Accepts $130 million Anonymous Trump Ally Donation to Fund Troops

    The Defense Department revealed Friday that the Trump administration intends to use a $130 million donation from a President Donald Trump loyalist who wishes to remain anonymous to pay military personnel during the government shutdown. The money was received under the department’s “general gift acceptance authority,” according to a statement released by chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell to CNN. “The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost-of-Service members’ salaries and benefits.”

    The action is a dramatic break from government practice, which has hitherto relied on congressionally authorized public funds to fund the military. Additionally, it immediately sparked inquiries regarding the identity of the contributor and the reasons behind sending the government the nine-figure cheque. It’s unlikely that the $130 million donation will have a significant effect on paying the salaries of the approximately 1.3 million active-duty military personnel, which comes to about $100 per service member.

    On Friday, appropriators from both parties of Congress stated that they were still waiting for an explanation from the administration regarding the details of the donation. Democrats also questioned its legality, arguing that the Pentagon’s cited gift acceptance authority only allows gifts for a few specific uses, like supporting military schools, hospitals, and cemeteries, or helping injured soldiers or the families of those killed or injured in the line of duty.

    Offset a Lapse in Appropriations

    Donations from foreign governments or organizations may also be subject to further, stricter regulations. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, the leading Democrat on the Senate’s defense budget subcommittee, said in a statement that using anonymous donations to finance our military raises serious concerns about whether our own troops are in danger of being literally bought and paid for by foreign powers.

    Additionally, budget experts questioned whether the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from utilizing federal monies in excess of what has been allotted to them, would be violated if the donation were used to pay military personnel. During the shutdown, Democrats have repeatedly charged the administration with breaking that rule, notably when it decided to fire thousands of government employees.

    “The Antideficiency Act makes it clear that private contributions cannot be used to make up for a lapse in appropriations,” said Bill Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Senate GOP budget aide. “The law is very clear, so I think they could accept it, but they couldn’t use it for that purpose,” Hoagland told CNN.

    Pentagon accepts $130 million anonymous Trump ally donation to fund troops
    Pentagon Receives $130 million Anonymous Trump Ally Donation to Pay U.S. Military Source: Web

    In an effort to address military shortages, Trump praised the $130 million donation on Thursday, claiming it came from “a friend of mine.” Declining to reveal the donor’s identity, he said, “He doesn’t really want the recognition.”

    A White House spokesperson directed inquiries to the Pentagon and Treasury regarding the donor’s name and any connections to foreign organizations or interests.  After that, the Pentagon forwarded those inquiries back to the White House. A request for comment was not immediately answered by Treasury. In addition to calling the donation “anonymous,” the Pentagon did not answer inquiries about whether it intended to inform Congress of the specifics of its use.

  • Trump’s Sanctions Hit Russia’s ‘war ATM,’ but Enforcement Remains Key Challenge

    Trump’s Sanctions Hit Russia’s ‘war ATM,’ but Enforcement Remains Key Challenge

    In an unexpected reversal, the Trump administration announced “massive sanctions” on Moscow’s two largest oil producers on Wednesday, following nine months of trying to persuade Russia to make concessions through incentives alone, such as hosting a major bilateral summit on US soil or holding talks on repairing diplomatic relations.

    After speaking with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the phone and securing an invitation to a second bilateral summit, this time in Budapest, President Donald Trump had just a week earlier retracted his plans to send long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

    Preparing that summit fell to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, one of Trump’s most aggressive Cabinet members with regard to Ukraine. However, the White House was finally struck by Russia’s unyielding insistence on tackling what it considers to be the “root causes” of the crisis.

    Trump stated on Wednesday that he didn’t want to “waste time” at another summit, but he did leave the possibility open, saying that “we’ll do it in the future.” As it became evident that his much-discussed Alaska summit had not been able to halt the rising conflict in Ukraine, Trump’s annoyance with Russia had been evidently increasing in recent months.

    This Deal – A Serious Blow to Russia’s War Machine?

    According to individuals who spoke to CNN last week, he even changed his mind on Ukrainian strikes deep within Russia, boosting intelligence sharing to assist Kyiv in targeting military and energy facilities. Even so, experts were taken aback by Wednesday’s decision to sanction the Russian oil giants and their subsidiaries after Trump’s repeated threats to increase sanctions against Moscow failed to materialize and the two presidents’ phone conversation last week suggested the US leader was still vulnerable to Russian pressure.

    Trump’s Sanctions Hit Russia’s ‘war ATM,’ but Enforcement Remains Key Challenge
    Trump’s New Sanctions Hit Russia Hard but Enforcement Remains Key Challenge Source: Web

    In written remarks to CNN, Maria Shagina, a senior scholar at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), stated, “It was actually surprising simply because there was always a discrepancy between Trump’s rhetoric and actions.” She stated, “It appears that Russia has overplayed its hand today, and Trump’s patience is wearing thin.” Experts and the energy markets are still trying to figure out how painful this will be for Russia.

    The Details and Implications of Newly Imposed Sanctions

    Although his government announced punitive secondary tariffs on India for its purchases of Russian oil in August, this is the first time Trump has directly sanctioned Russia since taking office again in January. The sanctions are standard in that US entities will be prohibited from conducting business with the listed corporations, Rosneft and Lukoil, as well as numerous subsidiaries, and their assets will be blocked in the US.

    However, the majority of experts concur that going after Rosneft and Lukoil is a big shift. RBC Capital Markets estimates that the two businesses together account for around half of Russia’s oil exports.

    Response of West to the Situation

    The appearance (whether intentional or not) of coordinating penalties with NATO partners, which had been standard procedure under the Biden administration, is another first for Trump’s second term. The European Union unanimously approved its 19th package of penalties on Wednesday, while the United Kingdom broadened its sanctions to include Lukoil and Rosneft a week earlier on October 15.  A complete transaction embargo on Rosneft is part of that package.

    Additionally, it targets Litasco, a Lukoil trading company in the United Arab Emirates that the European Union refers to as “Lukoil’s prominent shadow fleet enabler,” even though it does not specifically target Lukoil. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, stated, “This is a clear signal from both sides of the Atlantic that we will keep up collective pressure on the aggressor.” Von der Leyen also spoke with the US Treasury secretary on the phone Wednesday.

  • Trump’s Multi billion-dollar White House Ballroom Funded by Wealthy Donors, List Revealed

    Trump’s Multi billion-dollar White House Ballroom Funded by Wealthy Donors, List Revealed

    The identities of the affluent individuals and businesses funding US President Donald Trump’s new $250 million White House ballroom remain a mystery as work gets underway. On Monday, excavators and construction workers started pulling up sections of the East Wing as part of the groundbreaking for the elaborate 90,000 sq-ft project.

    The U.S. President has stated that he will personally fund a large amount of its construction and implied that certain unnamed benefactors would be prepared to invest over $20 million to finish the project. Some legal experts are worried about the funding mechanism because they believe it could be equivalent to paying for access to the administration.

    Richard Painter, who served as the Bush White House’s chief ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, told the BBC, “I see this enormous ballroom as an ethics nightmare.”

    Major Donors Funding W.H. Ballroom Project

    Painter continued, “It is raising money by gaining access to the White House and I dislike it. These corporations all want something from the government.” Senior executives from well-known US corporations, including Blackstone, OpenAI, Microsoft, Coinbase, Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google, attended a dinner for prospective contributors on October 15 at the White House.

    The owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Manchester United, Shari and Edward Glazer, together with their siblings, were also in attendance, as was Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets NFL team.

    The BBC’s US partner, CBS News, obtained a commitment form that implied donors would be eligible for “recognition” for their contributions. Names engraved on the building could be one way to honor them, though designs are still being finalized.

    At first, the White House said that 650 people could be accommodated in the enormous building.  Trump stated this week that it can accommodate 999 people. So yet, only one contribution has been identified.

    According to court filings, YouTube will contribute $22 million to the project as part of a settlement with Trump over a lawsuit alleging that his account was suspended after the disturbance at the US Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021. However, it’s unknown how many or how much of the remaining attendees have promised to donate. White House officials said they intend to make the formal list public, but it has not yet been released.

    Trump Remarks, “I will take it”

    The Trust for the National Mall, a non-profit organization that collaborates with the National Park Service and raises money for projects on the Mall and at the White House, would manage the gifts, according to documents that CBS was able to get.

    Trump claimed that several of the attendees at the luncheon for possible donors had been “really, really generous” and that some had inquired as to whether $25 million was a suitable donation. Trump stated, “I said – I will take it,”

    The White House has stated that future administrations will use the ballroom and that there was nothing improper about asking for donations.  It has stated that US taxpayers will not be charged for the restoration. The money given to the ballroom “will eventually pay for itself and save costs,” according to Martin Mongiello, a former executive chef at the White House and general manager of Camp David who has served under seven administrations, who spoke to the BBC.

    Furthermore, without accounting for other incidentals related to hosting large-scale events, the tents that are occasionally erected outside for gatherings – which he called “elbow to elbow” and “embarrassing” – often cost $1 million or more. However, Mr. Painter said it might be regarded as a “pay-to-play scheme,” which has plagued both political parties’ past White House administrations.

  • Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Compensation from US Justice Department

    Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Compensation from US Justice Department

    The U.S. President Trump is requesting that the Justice Department compensate him roughly $230 million for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter. They also stated that senior department officials who supported him or those close to him may eventually approve any settlement.

    In American history, there has never been a situation like this. Federal law enforcement followed Mr. Trump, a presidential candidate, who ultimately won the election and took control of the administration that now has to investigate his claims. Additionally, it is the most glaring illustration to date of the possible moral dilemmas that could arise from placing the president’s former attorneys in charge of the Justice Department.

    Mr. Trump filed concerns via the administrative claim procedure, which frequently serves as a prelude to legal action. According to people familiar with the case, the first claim, filed in late 2023, seeks damages for a variety of alleged rights abuses, including the F.B.I. and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and potential ties to the 2016 Trump campaign.

    Since the claim has not been made public, they talked under the condition of anonymity. Furthermore, the F.B.I. is accused of violating Mr. Trump’s privacy in the second complaint, which was filed in the summer of 2024, by searching his Florida home and club, Mar-a-Lago, for classified materials in 2022. Additionally, it charges him with mishandling confidential documents after he left office, which is an act of malicious prosecution by the Justice Department.

    Awfully Strange to Make a Decision

    “I was damaged very greatly and any money I would get, I would give to charity,” the president remarked when questioned about the matter at the White House following the publication of this piece. “That decision would have to cross my desk, and I’m the one who makes the decision,” he continued. “It’s really weird to make a decision where I’m paying myself.”

    According to attorneys, there are unquestionable ethical issues with the president’s legal arguments. Bennett L. Gershman, a professor of ethics at Pace University, called it a travesty. “The ethical dilemma is so fundamental and basic that a law professor is not necessary to explain it.”

    “And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not,” he continued, adding that those individuals are the ones who will determine whether he succeeds or fails. It’s strange, almost too unbelievable to be true.

    Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Compensation from US Justice Department
    President Trump Says He May Seek $230 mln in Damages from U.S. DOJ Source: Web

    The president also appeared to recognize that point last week in the Oval Office when he made a passing reference to the matter while standing by Attorney General Pam Bondi, her deputy Todd Blanche, and F.B.I. director Kash Patel. The deputy attorney general, in this case Mr. Blanche, is one of two individuals who can approve such a settlement in accordance with Justice Department standards.

    When he became president, Mr. Trump said, “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and I said, I’m sort of suing myself.” “It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right?” he continued. Thus, I’m not sure. However, that was a really powerful and strong lawsuit.

    Lawsuits are not strictly administrative claims. In order to determine whether a settlement may be made without filing a lawsuit in federal court, these complaints are first sent to the Justice Department using a document known as a Standard Form 95. A person may file a lawsuit in court if the department formally denies the claim or chooses not to take action. However, in this case, that is unlikely to happen because Trump is already essentially negotiating with his subordinates.

    Taxpayers usually pay for compensation. According to two people with knowledge of the president’s legal claims, he anticipated to be compensated by the federal government but had not received it.

    In the second claim, Merrick B. Garland, who was then the attorney general, Christopher A. Wray, who was then the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Jack Smith, who was the special counsel looking into Mr. Trump at the time, were accused of “harassment” meant to influence the election results. “President Trump spent tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation as a result of this malicious prosecution,” the claim stated.

  • North Carolina Republicans Set to Hand Trump Another Win in Redistricting Fight

    North Carolina Republicans Set to Hand Trump Another Win in Redistricting Fight

    President Donald Trump and his allies are increasingly pressuring Republican-controlled legislatures in several states to secure more GOP seats in order to strengthen the party’s majority in the US House, sparking a nationwide redistricting battle.

    The Republicans in charge of the legislature in North Carolina moved swiftly on Monday to go forward with a new congressional map, joining an increasing number of states that are redistricting in advance of the midterm elections next year. The map will be sent to the House after a vote by the state’s Senate on Tuesday morning.

    Targeting the US House district currently held by Democratic Representative Don Davis, the proposed design seeks to give Republicans the upper hand in 11 of North Carolina’s 14 House seats, up from the current 10. The most recent Republican-controlled state to start redistricting in the middle of the decade is the Tar Heel State. After next year’s legislative elections, Democrats only need to flip a few seats to seize control of the House, as the president’s party usually loses ground in midterm elections.

    On Monday, Republican Sen. Ralph Hise of North Carolina, who is supervising the map-drawing, made a blunt admission of the high stakes. During a Senate election committee meeting on Monday, he stated, “The motivation behind this redraw is simple and singular: draw a new map that will bring an additional Republican seat to the congressional delegation.”

    Hise went on to say that if Democrats win the House, they will “torpedo President Trump’s agenda.” The Trump “has called on Republican-controlled states across the country to fight fire with fire,” according to Hise. That call is answered by this map. The map and Trump’s travels across the nation were denounced by Democrats as a blatant attempt to seize power.

    The Ongoing State-by-State Battle

    Lawmakers wearing deep red with a map aiming to elect five more Republicans to Congress, Texas launched this year’s political arms race. Republicans in Missouri have also drawn new lines to increase the number of GOP representatives in the state’s congressional delegation. Both are being challenged in court, and Missouri activists are attempting to get the map overturned by means of a petition drive.

    California, which started a redistricting campaign in response to Texas, has so far shown the strongest opposition among Democrats. To convince voters to temporarily ignore congressional boundaries created by an independent panel next month and give Democrats up to five additional US House seats, a multimillion-dollar advertising and get-out-the-vote effort is now in progress.

    When it comes to the number of states that potentially have their maps redone, Republicans have a distinct advantage over Democrats. In 23 states; compared to 15 for Democrats; the GOP controls both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office.

    Other Republican states are also considering new maps, including as Kansas, where lawmakers have approved $460,000 to support a special session that would target four-term Representative Sharice Davids, the state’s only Democrat in Washington. To call a special session, two-thirds of the state Senate and House must concur.

    North Carolina Republicans Set to Hand Trump Another Win in Redistricting Fight
    GOPs in North Carolina Set to Hand President Trump Another Win in Redistricting Battle Source: Web

    The White House has asked the Republican-controlled state legislature to target at least one of the Democratic-held seats in Indiana, where Republicans have a 7-2 advantage in the US House. JD Vance, the vice president, has made two trips to the state to influence lawmakers. Ohio and Utah, two other Republican-controlled states, are also embroiled in redistricting disputes that started prior to Trump’s election.

    Political Tensions Rise Among Democrats in North Carolina

    North Carolina Republicans have hurried to comply with Trump’s requests.  Democratic Governor Josh Stein is not able to veto the maps under North Carolina law. Last week, state lawmakers started working on a map, and on Monday morning, a Senate elections committee openly discussed it for the first time.

    The map “would give the fantastic people of North Carolina the opportunity to elect an additional MAGA Republican in the 2026 Midterm Elections, which would be A HUGE VICTORY for our America First Agenda, not just in North Carolina, but across our Nation,” the president wrote last week on Truth Social, expressing his admiration for the map.

  • Vance Marks Marine Corps’ 250th Anniversary in California, Sparking Newsom Debate

    Vance Marks Marine Corps’ 250th Anniversary in California, Sparking Newsom Debate

    At a celebration of the United States Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary on Saturday in California, Vice President JD Vance encountered some opposition from Governor Gavin Newsom due to a live artillery display. Fighter aircraft, helicopters, Navy ships, and live fire from a towed howitzer were all part of the Camp Pendleton show, which the Marines described as the biggest in ten years in the continental United States.

    Due to “extreme life safety risk and distraction to drivers, including sudden unexpected and loud explosions,” Newsom shuttered a portion of Interstate 5 in Southern California. “It is not only wrong, but it is also dangerous to fire live rounds over a busy highway,” said Newsom, a Democrat who has often clashed with the Trump administration, in a statement.

    The assertion that the demonstration was unsafe was refuted by Vance’s office. The Marine Corps considered the exercise “an established and safe practice” and “part of routine training at Camp Pendleton,” according to a statement from Vance’s communications director, William Martin, to CNN.

    “Gavin Newsom is free to oppose the training exercises that guarantee our Armed Forces are the most lethal and deadly fighting force in the world,” Martin added. “Given his dismal record of failure as governor, it would not be surprising that he would stoop so low.”

    “I would not be here today, I would not be the vice president of the United States, I would not be the man I am today were it not for those four years that I served in the Marine Corps,” Vance, the first Marine to hold the position, said in remarks from Camp Pendleton about his time in the military.

    Vance marks Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary in California, sparking Newsom debate
    U.S. VP JD Vance Marks Marine Corps’ 250th Anniversary in California Source: Web

    After graduating from high school, Vance joined the military, serving four years in the Marines before going on a combat correspondent tour in Iraq in 2005. He also addressed the Trump administration’s battle against “woke” elements of the military in his remarks. “We are not stronger because of our diversity,” Vance stated. “It is our shared goal, our shared mission, and the fact that everyone here is loyal to the Marine Corps.”

    A similar argument was made by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who spoke before Vance. “When I look out at this throng, I notice a wide variety of faces. The fact is, you are not strong because of your diversity. Hegseth remarked, “Never has been. Your unity of purpose is your strength.”

    The Pentagon has repressed diversity initiatives and reversed attempts to eliminate toxic culture in the military that have been underway for the past ten years since President Donald Trump took office again in January. Vance also gave a message from the president at Saturday’s festivities, blaming Democrats, especially Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for the weeks-long government shutdown.

    “Our commander in chief, Donald J. Trump, sent me greetings today, and he wanted me to tell each and every one of you that he loves you, that he is proud of you, and that he will do everything in his power to ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve,” Vance stated. According to CNN, the Department of Defense is still paying troops with “unobligated research development testing and evaluation funds” while thousands of federal employees are still on furlough or working for no pay.

  • Trump Seeks Supreme Court Approval for National Guard Troop Deployment in Chicago

    Trump Seeks Supreme Court Approval for National Guard Troop Deployment in Chicago

    President Donald Trump brought the contentious legal battle over his authority to use such troops on American territory before the justices for the first time on Friday when he pleaded with them to permit him to deploy the National Guard in Chicago. At a time when the government is trying to send the National Guard to several US cities, the filing sets up a confrontation over presidential authority.

    Following a slew of rulings from lower federal courts, the emergency appeal temporarily halts the administration’s operations on the basis that Trump exaggerated the necessity of mobilizing the National Guard. The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Chicago, upheld a temporary injunction against that endeavor on Thursday.

    In a lawsuit concerning his attempt to send the guard to Chicago, Trump appealed to the Supreme Court. The lower court ruling “improperly impinges on the president’s authority and needlessly endangers federal personnel and property, “according to the administration’s appeal.

    The case brings the dispute before the Supreme Court, which has rarely made decisions regarding such deployments but has frequently deferred to the president on security-related issues and the definition of a national emergency.

    In order to execute the deployment while the high court reviews the matter, the administration requested a prompt order. The Trump administration contends in the appeal that lower courts were unlawfully interfering with the president’s power to manage federalized guard members.

    Overseeing the President’s Use of Commander-in-Chief Authority

    “The judicial branch is in the untenable position of controlling the military chain of command and judicially micromanaging the exercise of the president’s commander-in-chief powers, including the decision about which military forces the president can deploy,” the administration claimed, referring to the lower court order that temporarily blocked the deployment.

    The appeal claims that federal officials in Chicago “have been threatened and assaulted, attacked in a harrowing pre-planned ambush involving many assailants,” using powerful language to characterize the situation. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court, “Federal agents are compelled to frantically rush to protect themselves and federal property, diverting resources from their law-enforcement mission to conduct protective operations instead.”

    President Trump Seeks Supreme Court Approval for National Guard Troop Deployment in Chicago
    US President Seeks SCOTUS Approval for National Guard Troop Deployment in Chicago
    Source: Web

    This framing begins in sharp contrast to the decision earlier this month from US District Court Judge April Perry, which detailed the circumstances on the ground. Biden nominee Perry cited what she called “a troubling trend of defendants’ declarants equating protests with riots and a lack of appreciation for the wide spectrum that exists between citizens who are obstructing, assaulting, or doing violence, and those who are observing, questioning, and criticizing their government.”

    The Department of Justice has mostly relied on the 1827 Martin v. Mott Supreme Court ruling to support the deployments. During the War of 1812, Jacob Mott, a member of the New York militia, defied President James Madison’s command to mobilize. Mott claimed that Madison had miscalculated the threat, but the SCOTUS rejected this claim, ruling that “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively to the president.”

    A Range of Honest Judgment

    Sauer stated in the administration’s appeal on Friday that Trump’s present deployments are “squarely controlled” by that decision. The Trump administration has contended that federal courts are not even allowed to examine a president’s decisions to raise the alarm because of this.

    However, the US states contesting those rulings have mocked the idea that the demonstrations against ICE personnel are like an invasion by foreign troops.  Additionally, they cited Sterling v. Constantin, a 1932 ruling in which judges examined a former Texas governor’s choice to use the National Guard to close some of the state’s oil fields in an effort to reduce output.

    The Supreme Court decided in that instance that courts could examine deployment choices that were outside of a “range of honest judgment.” It was unclear at first how quickly the Supreme Court would decide the issue, but it asked state and municipal officials to respond by Monday night, which is quicker than normal. Since regaining power in January, Trump has filed emergency cases in which the conservative court, which has a 6-3 record, has sided with him.

  • Trump Met with Top Congressional Leaders at White House as Shutdown Nears

    Trump Met with Top Congressional Leaders at White House as Shutdown Nears

    According to several official sources, U.S. President Donald Trump met with the top four congressional leaders at the White House on Monday to discuss the impending government shutdown, but the meeting ends with no deal. His final meeting with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries comes as government funding is set to expire tomorrow night, with both sides remaining entrenched in their positions.

    Earlier this week, the president canceled a meeting with the Democratic leaders Jeffries and Schumer. He called the Democratic demands ridiculous and unserious, and said that they scrapped the meeting, which made it unproductive.

    Previously, CNN reported that the decision came after President Trump spoke with Thune and Johnson on a call, during which both Republicans argued against making an agreement with the Democrats. However, the Monday meeting will house all top leaders.

    In a Saturday statement, Schumer and Jeffries reiterated that Democratic leaders are willing to meet at any time, anywhere, and with anyone to negotiate a bipartisan spending deal that meets the needs of the American people.

    On Friday, Schumer called Thune to push for a meeting, an advisor for the minority leader said. It will be the first time Trump and Schumer have spoken since the beginning of the president’s second term, and the first time Jeffries has met with him in person.

    Enhanced Affordable Care Act Premium Subsidies

    Although the GOPs control the White House and the Capitol Hill, they require at least seven Democrats in the Senate to join them to approve a spending package under the chamber’s rules.

    Trump Met with Top Congressional Leaders at White House as Shutdown Nears

    Schumer is insisting that any funding bill include an extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, along with other provisions, to secure his party’s support. Republican leaders are seeking a seven-week extension of funding, along with additional funds for security for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

    If the deadlock is not resolved, the looming government shutdown could be unlike any other recent memory. Although no two government shutdowns are identical, the White House Office of Management and Budget, along with the Trump administration, has indicated a willingness to adopt a different approach. They are encouraging companies to reduce their workforce in programs that lack funding and do not align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

    The government shutdowns are no strangers to Trump, and the most recent one occurred during his initial term, starting in late December 2018 and lasting more than a month, around 35 days, the longest on record.