SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
house republicans
'Abominable': Trump and GOP Float Tying Los Angeles Wildfire Aid to Debt Ceiling
"It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said a leader in the Working Families Party.
Jan 13, 2025
The deputy national director of the Working Families Party had sharp words for a group of House Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump, who, according to Politicoreporting published Monday, discussed tying fire relief for California to the politically charged issue of increasing the debt ceiling.
The reporting comes as California continues to battle fires in the Los Angeles area that have consumed tens of thousands of acres and left over 20 people dead. The scale of the destruction could make them, collectively, the costliest wildfire disaster in U.S. history, a climate scientist told the Los Angeles Times last week.
"The Palisades wildfires have destroyed homes, schools, and businesses and left thousands of families without a roof over their heads. It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said Working Families Party deputy national director Joe Dinkin in a statement Monday.
"Every Republican should be on the record denouncing this abominable plan," he added.
Per Politico, nearly two dozen House Republicans attended a dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club over the weekend where the option was discussed.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Fla.), who was not a part of the conversation but did later confirm the conversation, must deal with the looming debt cliff, which is set to be reached sometime in mid-January, and he faces obstacles within his own party. In December, fractures appeared in the GOP when fiscal hawks refused to back legislation that Trump supported that would have raised the debt limit.
Johnson has also said he would try to lift the debt limit by including it in a reconciliation bill full of President-elect Donald Trump's legislative priorities, though this could run afoul with those same fiscal hawks. Some House Republicans reportedly brought up the pitfalls of this option during discussions at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.
Of the potential move to link fire relief to the debt ceiling, Politico reported: "The Sunday night discussions prove Republicans are desperately looking for a plan before the nation is due to exhaust its borrowing authority—though Democrats and some Republicans are sure to balk at the prospect of linking disaster relief dollars to a politically charged exercise like extending the debt limit."
Congress recently passed a spending bill that included funding for natural disaster relief, but scope of the destruction in California has some officials wondering if more may be needed, Politico reports.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Tries to Protect Netanyahu From ICC With Rules Package
"How did a bill to protect Netanyahu make it into the House rules package to be voted on immediately after the speaker vote?" asked one lawmaker. "Where are our priorities?!"
Jan 01, 2025
A Republican congressman known for sometimes clashing with his own party's leaders called them out on Wednesday for part of the proposed rules package that is an apparent response to a global court issuing arrest warrants for top Israeli politicians over the U.S.-backed assault on the Gaza Strip.
The GOP-controlled U.S. House Representatives for the 119th congressional session is scheduled to meet Friday afternoon to swear in members, hold a speaker election, and consider the 36-page package released Wednesday. Proposed changes include renaming or reestablishing some panels, making it harder to remove the speaker, and promoting electronic committee voting.
The rules resolution also states that once it is adopted, members shall consider a dozen bills listed at the end of the document. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) took issue with the inclusion of the eighth bill, which would impose sanctions over any International Criminal Court (ICC) "effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected person of the United States and its allies."
The ICC issued warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif, in November. Although Israel, like the United States, is not a party to the treaty establishing the ICC, the court has jurisdiction over occupied Palestinian territories—Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Massie said on social media Wednesday: "The United States is a sovereign country, so I don't assign any credibility to decisions of the International Criminal Court. But how did a bill to protect Netanyahu make it into the House rules package to be voted on immediately after the speaker vote? Where are our priorities?!"
Massie's comments on the rules package came two days after he publicly disagreed with President-elect Donald Trump's endorsement of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to keep his job for the upcoming session, saying that "we've seen Johnson partner with the Democrats to send money to Ukraine, authorize spying on Americans, and blow the budget."
So far, at least one other lawmaker—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—joined Massie on Wednesday in criticizing what he referred to as a "special protection provision for Netanyahu." Like her colleague from Kentucky, the Georgia Republican took aim at the court that prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
"I will not support giving any credibility or power to the International Criminal Court in our House rules package," Greene said of the ICC, which has faced opposition from both Democrats and Republicans over the years. "This clause needs to be removed."
Amid speculation that the ICC would issue the arrest warrants—as it ultimately did—the House passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas) Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act with bipartisan support in June. It never received a floor vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, though the Biden administration reportedly worked with the Israeli government in a bid to block the warrants.
Under the American Service Members' Protection Act, a 2002 law that critics call the Hague Invasion Act, Biden has the authority to "use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release" of an American or allied person detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of the ICC. Soon, the person with that power will be Trump.
Both Biden and Trump have spoken out against the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant, while a few progressive lawmakers—including Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a leading critic of the Israeli assault on Gaza and the only Palestinian American in Congress—have welcomed them and called out the U.S. government for providing billions of dollars in weapons to Israel.
"The International Criminal Court's long overdue decision to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity signals that the days of the Israeli apartheid government operating with impunity are ending," Tlaib said in November. "Our government must urgently end our complicity in these violations of human rights and international law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Previously Voting With GOP, 52 House Dems Targeted to Oppose 'Nonprofit Killer' Bill
"Every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," wrote one campaigner.
Nov 20, 2024
House Republicans have revived an effort to pass the so-called "nonprofit killer" bill—a piece of legislation that, if passed, would hand U.S. President-elect Donald Trump the ability to sanction civil society groups, including government watchdogs, news outlets, and humanitarian organizations.
A vote on the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act (H.R. 9495), which would allow the Treasury Department to remove tax-exempt status from nonprofits deemed "terrorist supporting organizations," is expected on Thursday.
But a wide coalition of organizations and individuals have voiced their opposition to the bill, including multiple groups that have mobilized to pressure House members to vote against it, particularly the 52 Democrats who previously voted in favor of it.
The controversial bill was blocked last week when 144 Democrats and one Republican voted against the bill after it was fast-tracked under a procedure that requires two-thirds majority support for passage. Republicans then brought it back through the House Rules Committee, teeing it up for a simple majority floor vote.
The 52 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill include Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).
Groups including Muslims for Progressive Values, Fight for the Future, Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the union The NewsGuild-CWA have launched an advocacy effort to pressure those 52 Democrats to flip their votes and urge all members of the House to vote no on the bill.
"H.R. 9495 is a threat to our basic right to free speech, dissent, and advocacy. Democrats who claim to defend democracy must be called out for their SUPPORT of this bill. This bill will silence non-profits who speak up for human rights of Palestinians, reproductive rights, against deportations or ANY government policies," wrote Muslims for Progressive Values.
Some of Democrats who voted in favor have since said they will no longer support the bill.
Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) released the following statement on Monday: "I have heard loud and clear from folks in my district and understand the concerns of my constituents, non-profit leaders and their staff. The incoming administration's recent Cabinet nominations give me little faith that this tool would be used as originally intended. Therefore, I have decided to vote against H.R. 9495 and will continue acting in our district's and nation's best interests."
There is fear that the bill would, in particular, have a chilling impact on Palestinian rights organizations and pro-Palestine speech.
"This bill was designed to criminalize organizations and activists who oppose the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel's genocide of Palestinians and the slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Such legislation threatened the constitutional rights of American nonprofits, houses of worship, and advocacy organizations—regardless of political orientation. Lawmakers must understand the serious, long-term dangers of advancing bills or investigations that seek to suppress lawful activism and silence dissent," according to a joint statement issued by Arab and Muslim American groups last week.
Lia Holland, the campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement that "it's a disappointment but not a surprise to find Democrats voting for a bill to punish student protests against genocide on the wrong side of their entire values system. Over and over again, we've seen how legislative efforts designed to oppress dissent and silence speech end up burning their progenitors."
"H.R. 9495 is no exception—now, every nonprofit across the spectrum of human rights and progressive values is up in arms, begging Democrats to overcome their greed and their spite, and not to hand President-elect Trump the ability to destroy any nonprofit he dislikes with the flick of a pen," Holland added.
Others have also critiqued the proposed legislation on broader civil rights and free speech grounds.
"H.R. 9495 provides no due process or oversight, creating a tool for political retaliation under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' Trump would abuse this power to retaliate against any [organization] that challenges his agenda. The 52 Dems who initially supported it must reverse course," wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
Kia Hamadanchy, senior federal policy counsel at the ACLU, said that "every time we give the president new powers and more authority to act alone, we create an open invitation for abuse by the executive branch."
"While the ACLU would oppose this legislation no matter who the president is, and there is no question it could be weaponized against groups on both ends of the ideological spectrum," Hamadanchy added, "the rhetoric we saw on the campaign trail from the president-elect is even more reason for Congress to reject this bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular