senate

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans who were berated by President Trump over opposition to his war in Iran held a late-night vote Wednesday to try to appease him, rejecting a war powers resolution a day after a similar measure passed.

Trump harangued GOP senators face to face earlier in the day for allowing a vote to block his war in Iran on Tuesday, further escalating a feud that has diverted GOP efforts to focus on election-year affordability issues and brought much of the chamber’s business to a halt. He exchanged particularly harsh words with Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, one of four Republicans who had voted with Democrats on the measure.

Hours later, though, Cassidy was invited to receive a personal briefing on the war at the White House from Vice President JD Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff. Cassidy then returned to the Capitol to vote against a separate but nearly identical war powers resolution.

“I want to thank Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran. I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns,” said Cassidy, who lost reelection last month after Trump endorsed his opponent, in a post on X.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican who has repeatedly voted with Democrats to halt the war, voted present this time “to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace,” he said on X. The measure failed 47-50-1 just before midnight on Wednesday, and the Senate then left town for a two-week recess.

It’s unclear whether the move will be enough to appease Trump, who had called the Republicans “losers” for voting against his war and had called Cassidy a “lunatic” at the lunch after their tense exchange. But the vote was a clear signal to the president from Republican senators who still want to placate him, despite increasing tensions in recent weeks and his decision Wednesday morning to reverse himself and delay signing a housing bill that received overwhelming bipartisan support.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and a small group of his Senate GOP colleagues called Trump after the vote. Thune told reporters that the president was “pleased with the outcome.”

Trump later thanked Thune in a social media post and noted that Cassidy and Paul had switched their votes. “This vote puts Iran on notice!” he wrote.

The war powers measure blocked by the Senate on Wednesday was on a separate track from the nearly identical resolution adopted on Tuesday, which had also been passed by the House. Both votes were largely symbolic, and the measures do not carry the full force of law.

Cassidy had sharp words for Trump

Invited by Florida Sen. Rick Scott to speak at a GOP luncheon in the Capitol, Trump had signaled ahead of time that he would use the closed-door meeting to push senators to pass his proof-of-citizenship voting bill. But the conversation was more focused on Tuesday’s vote on war powers.

Most Republicans stayed quiet. But Cassidy stood up and defended his vote.

“I stood and said, ‘You have not told the American people what’s going on,’” Cassidy told reporters after the meeting. “This was supposed to last four weeks, it’s lasted four months. Our original objectives have not been achieved.”

The two men “went back and forth,” Cassidy said, and he “matched his tone and volume.” Cassidy said that he eventually de-escalated, but he did not want to be bullied.

“I am voting for war powers until I get a briefing,” he said afterward.

Trump repeatedly told Cassidy to sit down, according to a person familiar with the private meeting who was not authorized to discuss it. At one point, the president called the senator a “lunatic.”

Publicly, Trump said afterward that they had “a really great meeting.” But he hinted at the discord.

“We like everyone in the room,” Trump told reporters on his way out. “I don’t like a few people, but that’s OK.”

The luncheon capped weeks of friction between Trump and Senate Republicans and added a new layer of frustration as Tuesday’s vote was the first time the Senate had adopted a war powers resolution on the Iran war. Trump made clear he was in no mood to compromise before it even started, calling off a scheduled signing ceremony on a housing bill that passed both chambers overwhelmingly this week and that GOP lawmakers were touting as an election-year achievement.

Trump reverses on housing bill

Republican senators were eager for a conciliatory meeting with the president after escalating tensions in recent weeks. But Trump upended their plans when he declared on social media just beforehand that he wouldn’t sign the legislation until they send him the SAVE America Act, his bill to require proof of citizenship for all voters.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said he doesn’t know why Trump is holding the housing bill “hostage” for the voting bill that “will never pass in this Congress.”

“It makes no sense to me,” Tillis said as he walked into the luncheon.

Thune said the housing legislation, which aims to lower costs, is “an affordability issue,” and that ”eventually I hope he finds a way to sign it.”

It’s unclear if Trump might veto the legislation or if the late Wednesday night vote will change his outlook. But by rejecting a public bill signing, Republicans worry that Trump is indicating a level of indifference to voters’ affordability concerns heading into November’s midterm elections.

Trump and Senate Republicans have been at odds

Trump’s move on the housing bill is his latest reversal after weeks of being at odds with Senate Republicans.

Trump has blocked the Senate from confirming one of his own nominees, asked them to fund parts of his White House ballroom project despite opposition and forced them to defend the Iran war even as they question the strategy and endgame.

Trump has also helped whittle down his own support in the Senate after endorsing primary challengers to two GOP incumbents who were previously reliable votes for his agenda — Cassidy and Texas Sen. John Cornyn. Both men have become more critical of Trump since losing reelection.

“If we’re going to win the midterm elections, we need to get on the same page,” Cornyn said ahead of the meeting. “We’re not on the same page now, and that I think is dangerous.”

Trump pushes Thune on SAVE America Act

Trump has pressed Republicans for months to kill the Senate filibuster and focus on the proof-of-citizenship voting bill, even though Thune has repeatedly told him that neither has the votes.

While Thune remains popular in his conference and cordial with the president, he has spent much of his time lately telling Trump what he doesn’t want to hear. Thune said Tuesday that while Trump and some in their conference want to see the voting bill pass, “it’s just not realistic.”

Thune devoted weeks of floor time to the voting bill earlier this year and has said he supports it. But he has repeatedly said there aren’t enough votes to scrap the filibuster that triggers a 60-vote threshold to pass most bills in the 53-47 Senate. And Democrats are uniformly opposed to the bill.

“I think people at some point have to come to grips with that,” Thune said.

Jalonick, Sloan, Cappelletti and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Josh Boak and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Constitutional amendment will keep President Mnangagwa in office until 2030 and allow parliament to elect the president.

Zimbabwe’s Senate has overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that will keep President Emmerson Mnangagwa in office until 2030.

According to Senate President Mabel Chinomona, the controversial amendments were passed on Wednesday after 75 senators voted in favour and four against extending the term for Mnangagwa, 83.

The raft of sweeping changes, which critics have called a “constitutional coup”, includes a provision that extends presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years.

The bill also includes a provision for the president to be elected by parliament rather than by direct popular vote.

With parliament’s backing, the bill now has to be signed by Mnangagwa to become law.

Mnangagwa’s Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party holds a strong majority in parliament and has ruled since independence in 1980.

Last year, the ruling party resolved to change the constitution to prolong presidential terms, and the plan received cabinet backing in February.

The bill then passed through the National Assembly last week, with 216 lawmakers voting in favour of the draft legislation and 42 against it.

Mnangagwa came to power after a 2017 military coup ousted longtime leader Robert Mugabe, who had been in power since independence in 1980.

Still, the country’s opposition, which has been weakened by years of repression, charges that the measures would entrench ZANU-PF’s control over the country.

Moreover, activists who have tried to mobilise in the country have reported intimidation and violence, including arrests or assault by suspected agents of the state.

Legal challenges have also failed to stop or invalidate the amendment process.

In March, Human Rights Watch said that Zimbabwe’s authorities were using violence and intimidation against those who were opposing the amendments.

“Over the last few months, the police and unidentified armed men have threatened, harassed, and beat up several people who are opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment,” it said in a statement.

The United States Senate has voted in favour of invoking its war powers to force President Donald Trump to halt his military campaign against Iran or seek congressional approval before any further action is taken.

Here is a closer look at Tuesday’s vote – the 10th attempt Congress has made to rein in the US-Israel war on Iran – and what this means for the US government.

Why did this vote take place?

A similar measure had already been approved in the House of Representatives on June 3 by a vote of 215 to 208, and on Tuesday, the Senate passed it in a 50-48 vote. Trump’s Republican Party has slim majorities in both chambers.

Speaking on the Senate floor before the vote, top Democrat Chuck Schumer advocated for the war powers resolution as he criticised Trump’s military campaign against Iran.

“For years, Trump promised to put maximum pressure on Iran, but he ended up delivering maximum confusion, maximum chaos, maximum cost to the American people with his disastrous war,” Schumer said.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people. The American people have paid the price for Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

The war against Iran has proved highly unpopular in the US. A poll released on Tuesday by the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos found that 24 percent of respondents felt the war had been worth the cost.

The Senate passed its first war powers resolution against the Iran conflict on May 20, but that effort was a procedural move only and did not progress.

Who voted and how?

Four Republican senators crossed party lines to vote for the resolution, and all but one of the chamber’s Democrats also voted in favour.

Tuesday’s breakaway Republicans were Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. A further two Republicans did not vote: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania.

The lone Democrat to vote against the measure was Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman.

What does the resolution say?

The war powers resolution “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Only if “explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorisation” would Trump be allowed to use further military force against Iran, it says.

The resolution, however, does allow for a limited military presence to remain in the Middle East to prevent any “imminent attack” against the US or its allies.

What is the significance of the vote?

The vote reflects growing unease even among some of Trump’s Republican supporters about the unpopular conflict, which began with US-Israeli air strikes on Tehran on February 28.

This is the first time both chambers of Congress have passed a resolution directing a president to remove US armed forces from a warzone under the War Powers Act although it was not immediately clear how the votes might affect the conflict.

Technically, the Trump administration should now seek explicit congressional approval for further strikes on Iran. However, previous administrations have found routes around this by securing more limited authorisations for the use of military force (AUMFs) instead.

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF, allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. The assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

In addition, a resolution does not have the force of law. Experts said, therefore, that while the Senate vote is viewed as a rebuke to Trump, it is largely symbolic.

What effect will this have on US-Iran talks in Switzerland?

Before the vote on Tuesday, some Republican senators had warned that the war powers resolution would weaken Trump’s standing in the Switzerland negotiations.

“If this passes, the Iranians are going to simply stand up and walk away from negotiations,” Senator James Risch of Idaho told the Senate on Tuesday.

“They’re going to say: This thing’s over. The Congress has told the president of the United States, ‘Leave us alone. We can do whatever we want to do,’ and they will walk away.”

How will the Trump administration respond?

Risch also argued that the resolution is essentially useless, given its symbolic nature. “It’s going to have no effect. The president isn’t going to pay any attention to it,” he said.

The US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, but that division of power has eroded over the past 75 years as successive presidents alone have committed US forces to overseas conflicts.

Trump has pointed to that precedent to argue that he does not need congressional authorisation at all.

In an appearance on The Axios Show last week, Trump denied learning any “lesson” about the limits of his executive powers during the Iran war. “There are no limits,” he said.

The last time Congress voted to go to war was during World War II although it has passed AUMFs in the decades since, which allow for limited military engagement without congressional approval for all-out war.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

Some critics pointed out that Republicans may be more willing to confront Trump over the issue of congressional authorisation now as they defend their seats before November’s midterm elections.

EXPLAINER

Iran and the US clash over nuclear inspections and Hormuz as negotiators push for a final deal within 60 days.

Iran and the United States have offered conflicting accounts of key issues as negotiators work towards a final agreement within a 60-day window. Differences remain over nuclear oversight and the implementation of any deal, underscoring the challenges facing both sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran would not be allowed to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz under a final agreement, stressing that the strategic waterway must remain open to international shipping.

Meanwhile, Iran rejected US claims that it had agreed to allow nuclear inspectors back into the country after President Donald Trump said Tehran had accepted the “highest level” of monitoring. The conflicting statements highlight the gaps that negotiators are still trying to bridge.

Here is what has happened:

In Iran

• Iran’s military shifts to ‘offensive doctrine’: General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, head of Iran’s Army Strategic Studies and Research Center, said Tehran has moved away from a purely defensive posture and now includes preemptive operations in its military strategy. Quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency, Pourdastan said Iran could “severely surprise the enemy” if national interests required it and added that much of the country’s military capability has yet to be used.
• Iran says no IAEA inspections planned: Tohid Asadi, reporting from the Strait of Hormuz, says the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has denied reports of a meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi and said there are currently no plans for visits or inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog. Baghaei said Iran’s dealings with the IAEA would be governed by existing procedures, its safeguards obligations, parliamentary legislation and decisions by the Supreme National Security Council. Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA after US and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025, and while diplomacy continues under a 60-day framework, Tehran says it has not granted permission for inspectors to return.

War diplomacy:

• ‘No way’ US and Iran can finalise deal in 60 days, analyst says: Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera there is “no way” Washington and Tehran can complete a final agreement within the 60-day timeframe repeatedly cited by President Donald Trump. “I think we’re talking about at least into the next calendar year,” he said, adding that he would not be surprised if both sides simply “run out the clock” by continuing negotiations and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open without reaching a final deal before the end of Trump’s presidency.
• Qatar says LNG production could return to normal within weeks: Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani told the Financial Times that Qatar is preparing to restore normal liquefied natural gas (LNG) production after the interim US-Iran deal. Qatar, the world’s second-largest LNG producer, halted output in March following an Iranian drone attack on the Ras Laffan facility. Sheikh Mohammed said most production could resume within weeks, except at the damaged site, adding that QatarEnergy would only lift its force majeure declaration once it is satisfied that all safety and operational concerns have been addressed.

In the Gulf:

• Rubio ‘trying to sell the deal’ with Iran on Gulf tour: Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, DC, said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is visiting the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, three Gulf countries seen as having been among the most affected by the war with Iran. Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security adviser, is expected to reassure regional allies that US security commitments remain intact. He will also address the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain, where he is “really trying to sell the deal”, amid concerns over Washington’s response to Iranian attacks.

In the US

• US Senate approves resolution to curb Trump’s war powers on Iran: The Senate voted 50-48 to pass a measure requiring congressional approval for further US military action against Iran, marking the first time a war powers resolution on the conflict has cleared both chambers of Congress. Four Republicans – Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Rand Paul – joined nearly all Democrats in backing the measure, while Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted against it. The resolution is expected to face a veto from President Trump.

In Israel

• US ‘very naive’ on Iran, Ben-Gvir says: Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the US would be “very naive” if it believed Iran would abandon its nuclear programme, and hinted that Israel may act independently against Tehran. “It is Israel’s responsibility to confront this Iranian threat and act against it alone,” he told Israel’s Channel 7, adding that “no circumstances” could force Israel to act “according to the dictates of a friend, even if that friend is truly great”. His remarks come amid reported tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv over Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and ongoing US-Iran negotiations. Last week, US Vice President JD Vance publicly criticised Israeli cabinet ministers for “attacking” Washington, calling the US Israel’s “only powerful ally” left in the world.

In Lebanon

• UN says ceasefire ‘largely holding’ in southern Lebanon: The United Nations said the ceasefire in southern Lebanon appears to be “largely holding”, although peacekeepers continue to observe Israeli military ground and air activity. UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL troops witnessed “heavy” machine-gun fire and three tank rounds fired by Israeli forces near Biyyada on Monday, while drones were also seen “apparently to monitor UNIFIL peacekeepers”. The incident came a day after peacekeepers reported the first day without exchanges of fire since fighting escalated on March 2. The UN urged all sides to “adhere fully to the ceasefire and refrain from any escalation, particularly during this delicate period of ongoing negotiations”.

June 24 (UPI) — Senate lawmakers have approved a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to halt U.S. hostilities with Iran or seek congressional authorization.

The Senate voted 50-48 on Tuesday, with four Republicans — Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joining their Democratic colleagues in passing H.Con.Res. 86. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

The measure’s legal force was disputed. Though concurrent resolutions are non-binding, Democrats argue H.Con.Res. 86 is binding because it was adopted under the War Powers Resolution.

Either way, the measure shows the deepening fissure in support among Trump’s Republican Party for the war his administration unilaterally launched in late February.

Democrats have been forcing repeated war powers resolution votes for months, most of which have been stonewalled by Republicans. But GOP support for the war has waned as it has dragged on, culminating Tuesday when the Senate approved the measure that the House narrowly passed 215-208 earlier this month.

“Both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the resolution’s sponsor and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Tuesday after the vote.

“Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.”

Democrats argue that the U.S. war with Iran — as well as other military actions taken by Trump, including attacks on suspected drug-trafficking boats in international waters — is illegal as Congress has not authorized war, a power the Constitution gives to Congress.

Trump has responded that he does not need authorization, and any war powers resolution is moot due to the fragile U.S.-Iran cease-fire that went into effect in early April.

Amid the cease-fire, Trump has been seeking an agreement to end the war, and his administration was actively negotiating terms with Iran when the vote was held Tuesday.

In a social media statement, Trump lambasted Congress over the vote, saying it was informing Iran that the United States does not support him while hee has “Iran on the ‘ropes,’ ready to go down for the fall.”

“Four Republican Losers voted with the Dumocrats,” he said, while calling the measure “poorly timed and meaningless.”

“These Senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done.”

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told senators it needs roughly $80 billion, mostly to cover the cost of the U.S. war against Iran, adding to what is already a sizable military spending boost being sought by President Trump.

Meanwhile, the Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50-48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. Although the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate over the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has yet to make a formal request to Congress for more money for the war. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, including Monday evening. A top deputy Defense secretary told senators about the Iran funding request last week, according to two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the developments.

The push for billions of dollars in Iran war funding comes at a fraught political moment. Lawmakers are not only skeptical of the deal Trump struck with Iran to bring an end to the war, but also wary of next steps. The White House has requested a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon — a nearly 50% increase over the current fiscal year’s funding levels.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he’s expecting a supplemental spending request from the administration for the war, and when it arrives, “we’ll work through it and see where the votes are.”

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to replenish, resupply a lot our munitions that have been depleted — not only just with what’s happening with Iran, but prior to that,” said Thune (R-S.D.).

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg spoke to several senators about the proposal in calls last week and he notified congressional committees that the $80-billion request had been sent to the Office of Management and Budget. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, the funding package will almost certainly run into trouble from lawmakers who refuse to support Trump’s decision to go to war and are reluctant to give the Pentagon more money at a time of high costs of living for Americans at home.

“You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington told Hegseth in a hearing last month.

In addition to the Iran funding, Republicans hope to secure about $1.1 trillion through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. Then, they hope to secure an additional $350 billion through a mostly party-line vote later this summer.

The amount being sought by the Pentagon is far higher than the $29-billion estimate of war costs that Hegseth gave Congress during his testimony last month. The bulk of that amount was related to replacing munitions and repairing equipment but also included operational costs to keep forces deployed. That estimate did not include the cost to repair or rebuild U.S. military sites damaged in the region.

It’s also far lower than the initial $200 billion the Pentagon floated as the costs at the start of the war. An early estimate put the cost of the first week of the war at $11.3 billion.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic party leadership, said he expects the actual price tag could be much higher than the $80 billion being proposed.

Schatz said he hasn’t done any counting of Democrats about whether there is support for an Iran-focused bill, “but I haven’t found anyone who wants to do this.”

But Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana said, “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles.”

Banks said, “I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.”

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said funding for an Iran supplemental can’t be done in isolation. It has to be done after lawmakers from both parties have agreed to a total spending amount for both defense and non-defense programs, “then the rest of this would follow pretty quickly,” Reed said.

And Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a member of the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said he has been working with the administration to broaden the package to include funds for disaster aid for California, Hawaii and other states hard hit by fires and weather problems, as well as agricultural aid for farmers.

“I think that’s the kind of combination that could pass,” Hoeven said.

Hegseth declined to answer questions from reporters late Monday as he strode around the Capitol.

But on the issue of the cost of the war, Hegseth responded rhetorically during a Senate hearing last month, asking, “What is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon?”

He acknowledged the president’s decision to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran “comes with cost — and we recognize that.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Konstantin Toropin and Ben Finley contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50 to 48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. While the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate over both the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Schumer said Americans have paid the price for “Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

In the past, as many as four GOP senators have voted for the war powers resolutions, and they did so Tuesday — Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against the resolution.

On this vote, the absence of two Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was admitted to the hospital recently for an undisclosed matter, left the GOP without a full majority to halt the effort. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) also missed the vote.

The vote also comes as the Pentagon is seeking $80 billion from Congress, mostly for the Iran war as it backfills munitions and stockpiles.

Trump to meet senators as Republicans balk at Iran deal

Trump himself is headed to the Capitol this week to meet with GOP senators as Vice President JD Vance has been overseas working to negotiate with Iran to end its nuclear ambitions — which had been among the stated rationales for the war.

The president is not pleased with the Republicans who have been critical of the deal he struck with Iran, according to one GOP senator granted anonymity to discuss the private dynamics.

The terms of the Iran deal are spelled out in a memorandum of understanding that Trump signed last week, starting a 60-day clock for the sides to reach a broader agreement over ending Iran’s nuclear program.

But Republicans have particularly objected to the $300-billion fund to help Iran rebuild, which is far greater than the $1.7 billion then-President Obama refunded the country under his administration’s 2015 Iran deal.

“I believe President Trump is getting very poor advice on Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said last week on his podcast after the deal was made public.

Democrats have repeatedly forced Iran votes

Over and again, Democrats have been forcing votes on the Iran war, almost since the U.S. and Israel launched missile strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

Nearly each week they’re in session, the Senate Democrats have put forward war powers resolutions, but they have failed to amass the majority needed for passage in the narrowly split chamber, where Trump’s Republican Party holds the majority.

The House pushed its own version to passage earlier this month, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in approving the war powers resolution, over the objections of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the GOP leadership.

While such resolutions do not go to the president for his signature, passage stands as a powerful, if symbolic, statement from Congress and a rebuke of the administration’s military actions.

Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia who has led his party’s efforts, said the pause in warfighting, as Trump’s team works to shore up a fragile ceasefire, provides the perfect time for Congress to step back and assess “what should the next chapter be.”

Hegseth seeks $80 billion from Congress for the Iran war

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also on Capitol Hill this week, seeking roughly $80 billion in supplemental funding to shore up defense supplies in the aftermath of the Iran war, which is drawing scrutiny when many Americans are reeling from high gas prices and costs of living.

The Pentagon early on had estimated the war cost $11.3 billion during its first week, and experts have put the overall price tag at close to $100 billion.

The Defense Department’s funding request is part of a broader beef-up of military money the White House wants as part of its budget request this year.

The Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in defense funding this year — a 50% increase — including $350 billion that it wants in a so-called budget reconciliation package. Johnson and GOP leaders are working to pass that package on their own, over the objections of Democrats, much the way they approved Trump’s big tax cuts bill last year.

The 2025 tax cuts package also included a sizable increase of about $175 billion for the military.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

June 22 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate on Monday passed a bipartisan bill aimed at lowering housing costs, sending it to the House of Representatives for a final vote.

The Senate voted 85-5 to pass the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Several senators missed the vote because of severe thunderstorms that affected Ronald Reagan International Airport, NBC News reported.

A deal on the act was negotiated by a bipartisan group including Sen. Tim Scott, R-Ariz.; Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Scott and Warren both said before the vote that it showed that common ground is possible.

“Today’s vote proves that it is possible to find bipartisan, common ground on legislation that actually helps the American people,” Warren said on the Senate floor, The Hill reported. “And, importantly, it proves that bipartisan legislation doesn’t have to be the weakest, most milquetoast agreement that doesn’t offend anyone or do too much to help anyone either.”

The bill’s provisions include measures that encourage renovating older homes, encourage communities to build more housing through funding and grant programs, cut some red-tape issues around building housing and effectively ban private equity from buying up single-family homes. It restricts companies that already own more than 350 single-family homes from buying more.

The act had been stranded for a time after the Senate passed one version in March and the House of Representatives passed a different version in May. The final bill includes provisions sought by the House and drops a provision it objected to that would have required large investors that own or construct at least 350 single-family homes to sell them after seven years.

Those voting against it included Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who told The Hill that housing is “a local issue.” Scott said he wanted to see Congress balance the budget and drive interest rates down.

If the House votes to approve the bill this week as expected, it will go to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it.

The Senate has confirmed Michelle Steel, a former two-term Korean American congresswoman, as the United States’ ambassador to South Korea.

The upper chamber approved Steel in a 55-39 vote on Wednesday (U.S. time), clearing the way for her to take the ambassadorial post as Seoul and Washington face a series of joint tasks, including “modernizing” their alliance and implementing bilateral security and trade agreements.

In April, U.S. President Donald Trump nominated her for the ambassador post, which has been left vacant since former Ambassador Philip Goldberg left Korea in January last year.

Steel would become the second Korean American to serve as the U.S.’ top envoy to South Korea, following former Ambassador Sung Kim, who served in Seoul as ambassador from 2011-2014.

The South Korean government granted agrement on Thursday, the host country’s prior consent for the appointment of a foreign envoy, for Steel’s appointment, according to Seoul’s foreign ministry.

With administrative procedures on both sides effectively completed, observers say Steel is likely to take up her post no later than next month.

“The exact timing of her arrival will depend on remaining U.S. procedures, including the issuance of her credentials by U.S. President Donald Trump,” a ministry official said. “We expect Steel to contribute to strengthening the alliance between the two countries once she formally assumes her post.”

During her confirmation hearing last month, she vowed to ensure that American companies operating in South Korea are not discriminated against, if she is confirmed.

While in Congress, Steel was active in pushing for legislation to address the issue of Korean Americans who have been separated from their relatives in North Korea in the wake of the 1950-53 Korean War.

She was first elected to the House in 2020 and then reelected in 2022. She lost to her Democratic rival by a small margin in the 2024 general election.

She previously served as a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the California State Board of Equalization.

Her husband is Shawn Steel, an attorney who served as the California Republican Party chairman from 2001 to 2003. He has been the Republican national committeeman from California since 2008.

Born in Seoul in June 1955, Steel grew up and studied in South Korea, Japan and the U.S. She speaks fluent Korean.

She earned a bachelor’s degree from Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and an MBA from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

June 17 (UPI) — Rep. Mike Collins was projected Tuesday night to win Georgia’s Republican Senate primary runoff, defeating former football coach Derek Dooley as voters cast ballots in contests across the country.

The Collins-Dooley race was the highest-profile race on a primary night.

President Donald Trump has loomed large over November’s midterm elections, encouraging GOP-led states to redraw congressional maps, warning of impeachment and investigations if Democrats win control of the House and endorsing candidates who align with his agenda.

The Georgia Senate runoff drew national attention as a race that could help decide control of the Senate and test Trump’s influence in a battleground state.

Collins of Georgia’s 10th Congressional District ran with Trump’s endorsement, while Dooley had the support of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

With all 159 localities reporting, Collins had secured 55.5% of the vote to Dooley’s 44.4%, according to unofficial results from the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Collins, speaking to supporters Tuesday night, projected an image of GOP unity, stating he had spoken with both Dooley, thanking him for running a “spirited campaign,” and Kemp “for his leadership and his friendship over the years.”

“We’re going to have some robust primaries out there. Sometimes, we got some strong disagreements, but I can tell you we stand united around one mission,” he said to applause.

“That’s right. And y’all know what the mission is: Is to put a Republican in that seat and get rid of that Jon Ossoff in November.”

Ossoff, a Democrat, won the Senate seat in 2021, flipping control of the chamber from the Republicans.

In his victory speech, Collins attacked Ossoff for voting in favor of President Joe Biden‘s landmark Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan as well as voting against banning transgender athletes from competing in female-segregated sports.

Following Collins’ victory, Ossoff attacked him on social media, calling him a “notorious bigot, antisemite and extremist” who is being investigated by the House Committee on Ethics for illegal misuse of tax dollars.

“Collins, who is only a congressman because his daddy was a congressman, voted to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians, for the Iran War and for the Trump tariffs,” he said in a statement.

Dooley conceded defeat.

“While tonight didn’t go our way, I want you to know that I’ll continue to be in this fight,” he said on social media.

“No matter who you voted for or what you believe, one thing we all can agree on is Jon Ossoff does not represent our Georgia values. In November, we’re sending him to the bench!”

Trump endorsed Collins on Friday after early voting ended, while Kemp endorsed Dooley in August.

But Tuesday night was not a clean sweep for Trump-backed candidates in Georgia. Rick Jackson, the billionaire founder of Jackson Healthcare, was poised to defeat Trump-endorsed Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones in the GOP governor runoff race.

According to unofficial results, Jackson had secured 52.65% of the vote share to Jones’ 47%.

The Georgia governor’s mansion is up for grabs as Kemp, a Republican, has been term limited. He faced Democrat Stacy Abrams in the last two gubernatorial elections.

Jones had won 38% of the vote in the primary election last month. Jackson received 32% of the vote. The runoff was scheduled as neither candidate surpassed the 50% threshold needed to win the GOP nomination outright.

Joe Fisher contributed reporting.

WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was admitted to a hospital Sunday, his spokesperson said, but there was no immediate information about why he was there or his prognosis.

McConnell, 84, was the longest-serving Senate leader in history before stepping aside from that role while finishing his final term, which ends in January.

“Senator McConnell was admitted to the hospital this morning. He is receiving excellent care,” spokesperson David Popp said in a statement without elaboration. It was not immediately clear whether McConnell was in Washington, Kentucky or elsewhere.

McConnell’s health has been a subject of scrutiny for years.

He fell and sprained his wrist while walking out of a GOP luncheon in December 2024. He was hospitalized with a concussion in March 2023 and missed several weeks of work after falling in a Washington hotel. After he returned, he twice froze up during news conferences that summer, staring vacantly ahead before colleagues and staff came to his assistance.

McConnell had polio in his early childhood, and he has long acknowledged some difficulty as an adult in walking and climbing stairs. In addition to his 2023 fall, he tripped and fell in 2019 at his home in Kentucky. He had surgery for a fractured shoulder.

McConnell was first elected to the Senate in 1984 and was the Republican leader from 2007 until 2025, serving as both majority and minority leader during that period.

He remains active in the Senate, showing up for work when the chamber is in session, and recently chairing public hearings and grilling officials from his perch as chair of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense. He has intermittently used a wheelchair to navigate the Capitol and is routinely accompanied by his security detail, as a former congressional leader.

Donald Trump picks Mike Collins over Derek Dooley in race to determine who will face Democrat Jon Ossoff in November midterms.

United States President Donald Trump has made a late endorsement in a Republican run-off for a key US Senate race in Georgia ahead of the US midterm elections.

In a post on his Truth Social account, Trump threw his support behind US Representative Mike Collins over former football coach and political newcomer Derek Dooley.

Collins and Dooley will face off in a Republican run-off race on Tuesday to determine who will challenge incumbent Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, in the midterm election in November.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump praised Collins for being a staunch supporter of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and a “true friend, fighter, and WARRIOR”.

Ossoff entered office in 2021 as part of a blue wave in Georgia that saw the majority of the state vote for former US President Joe Biden, as well as his fellow Democrat, Senator Raphael Warnock.

Georgia, which had for decades been dominated by Republicans, swung back towards Trump in the 2024 vote. Defeating Ossoff is seen as one of the Republicans’ best chances at claiming a new seat in the 100-member chamber, where they are hoping to hold on to their slim 53-seat majority.

Democrats are hoping to win control of both the House and the Senate in November, which would create a major bulwark against Trump’s agenda during his final two years in office.

Republican divides

Trump’s endorsement pits Collins against Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp, who has supported Dooley.

Kemp has remained generally supportive of Trump, but has faced off with him on several issues, notably Trump’s evidence-less claims that the 2020 election in Georgia was marred by fraud.

Dooley has said he did not vote in 2016 or 2020 when Trump was on the ballot, and has maintained that the election results in Georgia were legitimate.

Collins carried about 40 percent of the vote during Georgia’s Republican primary on May 19, with Dooley taking about 30 percent. Representative Buddy Carter, who did not advance to the run-off, came in a close third.

It remains unclear how big of an impact Trump’s endorsement will have. He made the announcement after early voting had already ended for the run-off.

Trump’s endorsements have seen mixed results in the primary season.

Trump’s decision to back Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was seen as aiding in the MAGA loyalist’s defeat of US Senator John Cornyn in Texas’s primary run-off.

Cornyn had widely been viewed as the strongest Republican candidate to take on Democratic challenger James Talarico in the general election.

In Iowa, Trump’s late endorsement of US Representative Randy Feenstra did not give him the bump needed to defeat fellow Republican Zach Lahn in the gubernatorial primary race.

Beyond the run-off in Georgia, Alabama will also hold several primary run-offs on Tuesday. That includes a Republican race for the solidly red seat of US Senator Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor.

Oklahoma and the federal district of Washington, DC, will also hold primary votes.

WASHINGTON — Democrats’ path to winning control of the Senate probably runs through Maine — where voters were set to head to the polls Tuesday after several days of growing party anxiety about Graham Platner, who has faced a string of controversies as the likely Democratic candidate.

Democrats not just in Maine but around the country — including in Texas, Iowa and other red states where the party’s mission to flip Senate seats would become more urgent if its prospects in Maine faltered — were closely watching Platner’s performance in Tuesday’s primary.

“They’ve probably become if not less optimistic, at least more nervous over the last 10 days or so,” said Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine.

Democrats face a challenging map as they seek to regain control of both chambers of Congress and claw back power in Washington. Unseating Sen. Susan Collins, the veteran Maine Republican, has been viewed as one of the party’s best chances, Brewer said.

Platner’s primary opponent, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, suspended her campaign in late April, clearing his path. He is generally expected to prevail as the Democratic nominee, but what percentage of his party’s vote he captures could help indicate how strong his candidacy will be in the general election, said John Cluverius, director of survey research for the Center for Public Opinion at UMass Lowell, which has conducted polling on the race.

“It’s critical [for Democrats], because without Maine, to win back the Senate you would need to win in states that Donald Trump won overwhelmingly,” Cluverius said.

Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran, emerged as a political outsider and quickly gained popularity.

But apparent scandals followed him. The latest came Thursday, when the New York Times reported that three ex-girlfriends of Platner’s had described his behavior as volatile and, by one account, physically rough. Platner, who denied the latter allegation, had previously addressed controversies related to his texting of women outside his marriage, a Nazi-style tattoo and old Reddit posts.

Over the weekend, Platner projected confidence. He took questions from audience members at a Sunday town hall, and on Friday, the campaign saw its best fundraising day since Mills suspended her bid opposing Platner for the nomination, bringing in $200,000 in 24 hours, a campaign official said.

“Since the beginning, Maine, you had my back,” Platner told supporters at a Friday rally. He drew a standing ovation when he continued: “Now, as every single piece of that past and journey gets dug up, litigated and weaponized, you have my back.”

Platner described the allegations against him as “politically motivated” and false.

The controversies surrounding him could help Collins, who has a track record as a political survivor, Brewer said. In 2020, the last time Collins was reelected, polls predicted she would lose to her Democratic opponent, but she secured reelection, even as the state went for Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential race.

“Her position has probably improved over the last few weeks,” Brewer said. “She has mostly stayed out of the way on this and let the negative stories pile up.

Last week, Democratic leaders largely stood by Platner, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated the party would continue to back him. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) campaigned with him at the Friday rally. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recorded a call to prospective voters on his behalf, and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) appeared at a virtual fundraiser, according to a source familiar with the plans.

The political calculus comes down to whether “they would rather have a Senate majority with Graham Platner in it than a Senate minority without Graham Platner in it,” Culverius said.

Democrats must flip at least four Republican seats to take control of the Senate, a difficult task. The Maine seat is the only possible Democratic flip in a state that went for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024 rather than for President Trump.

Democrats are also looking for victory in Texas, Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina or Alaska, all states that went for Trump in 2024. The party must additionally retain their seats in competitive races in Michigan, New Hampshire and Georgia.

How Platner affects his party’s chances of taking Senate control depends on what happens next, Brewer said.

“What else are we going to see? And I don’t know that anybody knows that at this point,” Brewer said. “I think that’s really what Democrats have to worry about the most. Is this as bad as it gets, or is there other stuff?”

Voters are willing to overlook scandal more readily than in the past, said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston. And in these midterm elections, Democratic voters view the stakes as “extremely high.”

“Most voters are looking at the prospect of winning and losing,” he said. “Parties are worried about getting the win.”

AUSTIN, Texas — A lawyer who represented Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton for nearly a decade over accusations of corruption and securities fraud is supporting Democrat James Talarico — and not his former client — in one of the biggest U.S. Senate races.

Talarico on Monday drew attention to his campaign winning the endorsement of Houston attorney Dan Cogdell, who was part of Paxton’s defense team during the Republican’s historic impeachment trial in 2023 that ended in acquittal.

The legal troubles that shadowed Paxton in public office in Texas are a central attack line of Talarico’s campaign, though in his endorsement, Cogdell didn’t cite concerns about his client’s past.

Cogdell said he didn’t dislike Paxton as a person and felt that Texas lawmakers were right to eventually acquit the attorney general. But as a politician, Cogdell said, Paxton is too focused on appeasing President Trump.

“I worked my ass off for the man for nine years,” Cogdell said in an interview with the Associated Press. “But that’s a different inquiry, my obligation to Ken ended at the courthouse steps and my obligation as a citizen is to do what I think is the right thing.”

Cogdell said Texas needs a lot of work, pointing to education and health care, “and to simply bootlick or rubber stamp Trump, that’s not what we need in D.C. right now.” He also recently spoke to Talarico at length on Cogdell’s podcast.ty.

Asked for comment, an aide to Paxton’s campaign said Cogdell is a Democrat and called the endorsement unsurprising.

The lead defense attorney in Paxton’s impeachment trial, Tony Buzbee, reiterated that on X. Buzbee added that he was supporting Paxton in the race.

Cogdell described himself as a registered Democrat, although voters in Texas do not register by political party. He added, however, that he considers himself a moderate who has given more campaign contributions over the years to Republican candidates than Democrats.

Talarico has given Democrats hope of flipping the statewide seat in Texas blue as the party scrambles to retake control of the U.S. Senate in November.

Paxton’s insurgent campaign beat Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican Senate primary runoff last month, helped by a Trump endorsement in the final days of the race.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — Former Sen. Bob Packwood, a moderate Oregon Republican whose reputation as a champion of women’s rights was tainted late in his career by a sexual harassment scandal, has died. He was 93.

Packwood’s death Saturday was announced in an obituary sent to media outlets by his family. The release didn’t include additional details.

As the scandal unfolded, Packwood initially refused to quit the chamber in which he had served for 27 years, saying he didn’t want to be remembered only for that.

Before the #MeToo era, Packwood stood out as an example of private behavior undermining a man’s public image. He previously had been praised by Planned Parenthood and others.

The great-grandson of a member of the 1857 Oregon Constitutional Convention, Packwood established himself as a social moderate and fiscal conservative who often voted across party lines. He considered running for president in 1980.

Elected to the Senate in 1968, Packwood was best known as the leading Republican advocate of abortion rights — at a time when the position had bipartisan support — and was widely admired by women’s groups throughout the country until the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the allegations of sexual and official misconduct in 1993.

More than two dozen women, former employees and acquaintances, accused him of making unwanted or uninvited sexual advances.

The allegations remained the target of an ethics inquiry that widened to include other alleged acts of official misconduct. He resigned in September 1995, and went on to start a lucrative lobbying business in Washington.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who replaced Packwood in 1996, said that although he should be praised for his record on abortion rights and tax reform, how Packwood treated women overshadows it all.

“His horrible history as documented in his own diaries will forever overshadow that public record. Simply put, historians’ first line about Bob Packwood must include those women who he abused and assaulted for years and years,” Wyden said in a statement.

As chair and then ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Packwood was a master of cutting deals and forging compromises needed to pass tax legislation through Congress. He was most proud of the lead role he played in a sweeping tax reform of 1986 that lowered the top income tax bracket and eliminated many itemized deductions.

Over his career, he was described as a blunt, independent, outspoken politician who was a boat-rocker, loose cannon, skilled partisan, and — for most of his career — political survivor.

“I think they probably all ring true,” Packwood told the Associated Press in December 1992.

“I would like to think that I am nobody’s lackey. I try to reach conclusions independently and then I’m willing to fight for those conclusions; if necessary, having to fight against my party or my party’s president,” he said.

Packwood won his first Senate election at age 36, narrowly defeating Democratic Sen. Wayne L. Morse, an Oregon legend who had held the seat for 23 years. He quickly grabbed attention as a rising star in the GOP. By 1980, he was elected chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

But he lost the seat when the White House backed a competitor after Packwood publicly accused President Reagan of alienating women, African Americans and Jews.

Just two weeks after Packwood’s reelection in 1992, the Washington Post printed allegations from former female employees and acquaintances that the senator had subjected them to uninvited sexual advances.

The Senate Ethics Committee also investigated allegations that Packwood solicited jobs from lobbyists for his ex-wife, used his staff to try to threaten the female accusers into keeping quiet and obstructed the investigation by altering his personal diaries.

The Senate held two days of extraordinary debate in 1993 over whether Packwood should have to comply with an Ethics Committee subpoena for his diaries, in which he reportedly made entries relevant to the investigation. The Senate voted 94 to 6 to enforce the subpoena.

Packwood took the case to federal court and lost, ending when Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist refused the senator’s request for the high court to intercede.

Packwood launched his lobbying business, Sunrise Research Corp., in 1997. By 1999, the firm was grossing $1.5 million a year. His business slowed in later years, but he told a City Club of Portland audience in 2010 that he was still spending about half his time in Washington lobbying for a number of clients.

It was interesting work, Packwood told the audience, according to the Oregonian, but “it is not as much fun as being in the Senate.”

As Congress became increasingly partisan after his departure, Packwood continued to advocate a centrist tack and in his 2010 City Club speech called for Oregon to create nonpartisan elections.

WASHINGTON — With virtually no strings attached, Congress is on the verge of providing a sizable infusion of cash to the Department of Homeland Security, powering President Trump’s mass deportation agenda for the remainder of his term in the White House.

The nearly $70-billion package, which cleared the Republican-held Senate in a middle of the night vote and now heads to the House, was declared a “rotten bill” by the Democratic leader and an “ATM for ICE” by pro-immigrant advocates.

But for those aligned with Trump’s campaign promise for the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, it all but guarantees an uninterrupted flow of money to carry out the administration’s immigration enforcement operations — and comes on top of some $170 billion Congress already approved for the department last summer, as part of Trump’s big tax breaks bill.

“We’re going to continue to arrest people, we’re going to continue to detain people and we’re going to keep deporting people,” Trump border advisor Tom Homan told CBS News on Friday.

He hinted at summer sweeps of enforcement actions coming next to New York City.

The work of Congress comes at a pivotal time for the Republican president and his party as they face restless voters before the midterm elections. About 1 in 3 U.S. adults know someone who has been affected by Trump’s immigration operations, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in April. And as America celebrates its 250th anniversary, most say it’s no longer a great place for immigrants.

The funding package from Congress is just a slim dozen-page bill that carries none of the usual guardrails or directives typically demanded in legislation. It turns loose $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, and billions for the Border Patrol, and others, prepaying the department’s operations into 2029.

“Their options are limitless in terms of what they can do with this money,” said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director at America’s Voice, a longtime advocacy organization for immigrants.

“That is such a hard thing to accept as a taxpaying citizen that our dollars are going to this massive, mass deportation machine, while Americans are struggling to meet healthcare costs, and have access to food and they’re paying so much in gas.”

The administration has sought to shift the debate over its immigration operations, installing new leadership at Homeland Security in the aftermath of violent scenes of immigration enforcement earlier this year and the shooting deaths of Americans Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Rather than the dramatic street sweeps, the administration is working behind the scenes on actions that are stripping immigrant groups of their ability to remain in the U.S., by doing away with Temporary Protected Status or making it more difficult to secure green cards.

The so-called Dreamers, young immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children, have reported delays in renewing their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status, exposing them to potential deportation.

But protests on American streets continue, including over detention conditions at the Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey.

At the same time, Homeland Security continues to hire more ICE agents — it’s hosting an employment fair next month in Florida — build more detention facilities and partner with countries around the world to take people who are being deported from the U.S.

In a statement, the department said Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are “laser focused on ensuring the hardworking men and women” of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol are fully funded. It said the package from Congress “will ensure our critical national security operations continue despite any Democrat attempts to hold our great patriotic employees hostage in the future.”

Typically a funding package from Congress would run hundreds pages or more, with a range of specific instructions about how the money can be spent and on what timelines.

Congress, after all, holds the power of the purse, and often uses that constitutional role to put checks on the administration.

But after Democrats refused to fund Homeland Security earlier this year following the violence in Minnesota, Republicans retaliated by using the congressional budget resolution process to muscle the package through on their own, outside the traditional appropriations channels.

It’s the same process both parties have used in the past, most recently on Trump’s 2025 tax cuts bill.

“All this important oversight doesn’t happen,” said Bobby Kogan, a former staff member of the Senate Budget Committee and now at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

Overnight, Democrats in the Senate worked to exert that authority, offering amendments to ensure Congress had some say in the process. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, for example, sought to protect “Dreamers” from deportation as their DACA renewals are being delayed. But those efforts all failed.

Meanwhile the administration is under enormous pressure to deliver on its promise to boost deportations to some 1 million a year, after the Republican president’s first year numbers fell short.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, is a leader of the Mass Deportation Coalition that is pushing the Trump administration to stick to its promises.

“Everyone’s talking about it like ICE is about to get another massive cash injection, and that’s not how I see it at all,” he said. “They’re getting like life-support money.”

“We’re not asking them to keep going,” Howell said. “We’re asking them to start.”

Howell said there’s little chance the Trump administration will be able to reach the president’s deportation goals unless it drops its priority to go after what they call the “worst of the worst.”

His group put out a framework earlier this year that proposes more comprehensive sweeps to arrest immigrants, particularly in the workplace. He also wants to see the Trump administration make it more difficult for immigrants who are in the U.S. to use the banking system, get social services and obtain driver’s licenses. Republicans in Congress have offered bills tackling some of those issues.

The administration has been amping up its own rhetoric and recently posted a new website that characterizes immigrants as “aliens” — with outer-space themes — and suggests ways the White House is working to prevent people from staying in the U.S.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation Thursday that would aid Ukraine and sanction key segments of the Russian economy, overriding objections from Republican leaders who warned the bill would undermine negotiations designed to achieve a comparable but stronger result.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., seeks to cement U.S. assistance for Ukraine by providing more than $1 billion in security and reconstruction aid. It would make another $8 billion available for Ukraine’s defense through loans.

The 226-195 vote is a sign of impatience with President Trump’s approach to the war and represents the House’s second major foreign policy break with Trump this week. The day before, the House, for the first time, approved a war powers resolution aimed at halting U.S. military action against Iran.

Supporters were able to force action on the Ukraine bill by gathering 218 signatures on a discharge petition, a legislative tool that allows a majority of the House to effectively bypass leadership.

Once rarely successful, House members have used the petition tool this Congress to pass bills on releasing the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein and to extend health care subsidies to many of those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, though the latter measure faltered in the Senate.

Meeks said the question before the House was simple. Would it help Ukraine negotiate from a position of strength or help Russia outlast American resolve?

“We all want this war to end,” Meeks said. “The question is how. Will we abandon Ukraine and force it into a terrible deal? That is what Vladimir Putin is counting on. Or will this body live up to the commitments we’ve made since the start of this war?”

The vast majority of Republicans opposed the measure. Rep. French Hill, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he is a steadfast supporter of Ukraine. However, the Arkansas Republican said the House was confronted with a flawed, outdated measure that actually calls for less funding for Ukraine security assistance compared to what Congress had agreed to as part of this year’s defense policy. Another section could lead to a decrease in defense spending by some NATO members, he warned.

Rep. Brian Mast, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he believed the bill was “a cudgel to fight against President Trump.”

“This bill, in my opinion, is an unserious bill that was crafted basically a year-and-a-half ago,” Mast, R-Fla., said.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., broke with most of his Republican colleagues in voicing support for the measure.

“Are we going to stand with good or are we going to stand with evil? That’s what this is about tonight,” he said.

In the end, 18 Republicans, 207 Democrats and one independent voted for the bill. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar joined with 194 Republicans in voting against it.

Lawmakers want to send a message

Supporters are hopeful that the House’s passage of the Ukraine bill would put pressure on the Senate to do the same. But they also know the Senate likely won’t go along unless Trump endorses the bill.

“It’s probably not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, but it’s going to hopefully force the Senate to address the issue,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who signed the discharge petition and voted for the bill. “It’s going to send a great message to the soldiers of Ukraine.”

He said the vote would also send a message to Putin that “we do have a pulse here, that we do care about Ukraine and that we are going to utilize our authority to help them.”

As the war has dragged on, it’s gotten more difficult for supporters of Ukraine in Congress to provide additional financial support to help Ukraine defend itself.

The U.S. has approved some $195 billion for the Ukraine response, according to the latest quarterly inspector general report for Operation Atlantic Resolve, with roughly a quarter of that going to replenish weapons stockpiles for the U.S. military. The last major legislation designed to bolster the Ukraine response occurred in April 2024, though modest amounts have since been included in annual appropriations bills.

Republican leaders tried to stop the bill

Republican leaders urged their members to oppose the legislation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said there are good-faith negotiations between members of Congress and the White House to boost Ukraine. He described the negotiations as complicated.

“I think they are going to yield positive results, but you set that back if you pass legislation that doesn’t go as far as the negotiations are going,” Scalise said.

The war that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor is more than four years old, with no end in sight. In recent days, both sides have sought an edge by launching long-range missile strikes.

U.S.-led peace efforts have fizzled out as the sides made no progress on key differences and after the war in Iran grabbed Washington’s attention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accepted an unconditional ceasefire demanded by Trump, but Putin refused.

Action in the Senate on Ukraine has revolved around a bill that would impose sweeping tariffs and secondary sanctions on countries that purchase Russia’s oil, gas, uranium and other exports, which are crucial to financing Russia’s military. But the bill has languished.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.

Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.

It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.

The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.

The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.

The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.

The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.

Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.

On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.

“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.

The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.

In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.

The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.

But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”

After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.

The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.

“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.

The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.

Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.

Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”

Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”

Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”

“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate is beginning a long series of votes Thursday on legislation to fund President Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies, moving toward passage of a three-year fix as Democrats have blocked the money for months in protest.

The roughly $70 billion bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The bill would fund the agencies for three years, through the end of Trump’s term.

First, though, Republicans must beat back a potential gauntlet of amendments that Democrats plan to offer, including to try and permanently ban Trump’s $1.776 billion settlement fund for allies who he believes have been politically persecuted. Democrats have said their first amendment Thursday morning will be to eliminate the fund and send the immigration spending bill back to committee.

Senate Republicans are using a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democratic votes. But it has taken weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion proposal for White House security that they eventually scrapped and fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund.

“The thing we’re trying to do here is to keep the focus on funding for ICE and CBP,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday evening, after the Senate voted to start debating the legislation. “This was narrow and targeted from the very beginning and clean, and we’re trying to maintain it that way.”

But it’s unclear if Republicans will have enough votes to fend off the Democratic amendments. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said this week that the fund would not move forward, and many GOP senators said Wednesday that they were satisfied with his remarks.

Yet Trump, who has been at odds with Senate Republicans in recent weeks, raised new doubts about the settlement’s future on Wednesday afternoon when he told reporters that the settlement is “very important” and said “I don’t know” whether it is dead or on hold.

“I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he said.

Democrats, Republicans plan to force votes on settlement

To pass legislation through the budget process called reconciliation, the Senate must first hold a long series of votes. Democrats are using that process to try and ban the settlement by law — and also kill the immigration spending bill.

After Trump’s comments about the fund, Schumer posted on X that “this is EXACTLY why” Democrats would be forcing votes to ban it.

Some Republicans also planned to try and put Blanche’s promise in writing. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has said he will offer an amendment to block any attempt at resurrecting the fund.

“We’ve got a sufficient number of Republicans who have been very clear they’ve got concerns there,” said Tillis.

ICE and Border Patrol money has been long fight

Democrats say any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks.

After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the DHS funding lapsed in mid-February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

Congress eventually funded the rest of the Homeland Security Department at the end of April with Democratic support. But ICE and Border Patrol remained without regular funding, and Republicans launched a new effort to pass three years of funding for those agencies with no Democratic votes.

Security money for Trump’s ballroom dropped

Work on the legislation was also delayed by Republican opposition to $1 billion in security funding for the White House, including for Trump’s new ballroom, that was added to the original bill.

Democrats and some Republicans questioned using taxpayer money for the massive project, and Republicans did not include it in the final bill when it was released on Wednesday.

Thune said he was working with his GOP conference to try and fight off any amendments and ensure he has enough votes for a simple majority to pass the bill in the 53-47 Senate.

“Keep in mind, we’ve got to keep them all together, make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” he said.

Republican House leaders said Wednesday they would like to clear the legislation before the end of the week, if the Senate can finish it. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said that House leaders were having internal conversations about the schedule.

“We just need to make sure everybody’s there,” Scalise said.

Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

Arthur B. Laffer, professor, businessman and possible candidate for next year’s Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from California, speeds down the freeway in his telephone-equipped BMW 733i, sipping a can of Diet Pepsi and reflecting on his life in the fast lane.

The impatient energizer of the nationwide tax-cut movement–a tenured professor at age 28, chief economist of the White House Office of Management and Budget at 29–has long prided himself on his ability to keep several balls in the air at once. But he acknowledges that his high-speed juggling act can sometimes get him in trouble.

“When you move very fast, you rustle the fields,” said Laffer, whose choirboy looks belie his 44 years. “You cause a commotion. Without meaning to, you create squalls.”

Controversial Figure

As a result, his life has been marked by controversy as well as achievement. Squalls spawned by Laffer’s frenetic pace have cost him a marriage and two college professorships.

Most recently, the designer of the Laffer Curve–which illustrates his disputed theory that cutting taxes can actually increase government revenues while a tax hike might reduce them–relinquished his post at USC’s School of Business Administration last September after a bitter dispute with the school’s dean. Toward the end, Laffer, who by all accounts is an excellent teacher, and the dean, Jack D. Steele, refused to even speak to each other.

USC blames Laffer’s schedule for the rupture. “With all his outside affairs, he was spreading himself too thin,” said Cornelius J. Pings, USC’s provost and senior vice president for academic affairs. “He just wasn’t meeting his obligations on campus.”

He Disputes View

Steele confirmed that Laffer’s extracurricular activities were a problem, although Laffer disputed that view.

As if to prove that he can run his $2.7-million-a-year economic consulting business and explore the possibility of seeking public office and advise President Reagan and teach, Laffer recently joined the faculty of Pepperdine University’s School of Business and Management. It was a step down in the academic world, though in many ways he and his new employer are well matched.

Pepperdine, founded in 1937 by a conservative auto-parts magnate, shares Laffer’s passion for the free enterprise system and his knack for self-promotion. Indeed, Pepperdine recently ran advertisements picturing “the renowned originator of the Laffer Curve” in the Wall Street Journal and The Times.

Although Laffer’s economic views mesh well with those of the Church of Christ-affiliated school, he is no fan of Pepperdine’s strait-laced social scene. Drinking is banned on campus and chapel attendance is mandatory.

Laffer, on the other hand, maintains an extensive cellar of German and California wines at his Rolling Hills Estates home. And, though raised as a Presbyterian, he doesn’t attend church–and says he won’t start should he decide to run for office.

About the only concession the plump professor has made to the image makers while testing the political waters has been to shed 15 pounds by substituting Very Vanilla Sego, a diet drink (“Yuk–I hate it!”), for his beloved sushi. Currently weighing in at 175, the 5-foot, 7-inch Laffer figures he has another 15 or 20 pounds to go.

Although considering a run for the Senate, Laffer is openly contemptuous of Congress. “If you look at congressmen and senators,” he tells audiences across the state, “you see a group who invariably prefer complex error over simple truth.” It is his biggest applause line. “If you ever saw what those guys actually did for a living, you’d recognize their banality and you’d throw them out of office.”

Six Children

Laffer’s personal life is as packed with activity as his professional one. Besides Traci, the 25-year-old second wife he fondly calls “my Valley girl” (she grew up in Ontario), the Laffer clan includes six children ranging in age from 6 months to 20 years, 15 rabbits, 10 parrots, 4 macaws, 3 tortoises, 2 horses, a Jack Russell terrier and a Norwegian blue fox. Laffer, an amateur biologist who once considered forsaking economics for a career in biology, manages to find time for all of them.

The menagerie used to be bigger. Fern, a pet weasel, drowned in the Laffers’ swimming pool, though her place in family folklore is secure. Laffer cackles when he remembers the time his daughter, Rachel, then 6, tossed the wriggling creature onto First Lady Nancy Reagan’s lap at a 1980 dinner party.

“I don’t think I’ve ever come so close to heart stoppage,” said Laffer, who at the time was trying to sell his supply-side theories to presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. “Everyone held their breath waiting to see how she’d react, but Mrs. Reagan was quite the lady about it.”

Unconventional Ideas

The economist revels in his new and unconventional ideas. He would reward elected officials and the head of the Federal Reserve Board with big bonuses when the economy booms and slash their salaries during recessions. He would wipe out the capital gains tax. He would amend the Constitution to provide for national referenda. And he would give $15,000, tax free, to the top 5% of scorers on the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

“Can you imagine if all of a sudden you could get out of the ghetto by studying instead of by playing basketball?” Laffer asked. “If you play basketball 16 hours a day, you become a great basketball player. If we could get these kids to study 16 hours a day, they’d become great students.”

Such schemes have won Laffer the friendship of “new ideas” Democrat Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado and the grudging admiration of some fellow economists. “Whatever you think of Laffer’s ideas, at least he thinks,” said Lester C. Thurow, a liberal professor of management and economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose views often differ from Laffer’s.

Some say Laffer’s boyish looks and small stature could prove a liability should he decide to seek office. Characteristically, Laffer employs humor to disarm the size issue. In speeches, he invariably mentions flat-tax advocate Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), the former New York Knicks basketball star. Then, in his best Joan Rivers delivery, he adds: “It’s disgusting how tall he is.”

Penchant for One-Liners

Indeed, Laffer’s penchant for jokes and one-liners (sample: “The British pound is so weak that they’ve started calling it the ounce”) have led some to question his seriousness. Samuel Armacost, president and chief executive officer of BankAmerica Corp., recently quipped that a speech by Laffer “isn’t economics–it’s entertainment.” Laffer says he uses humor to make complex subjects palatable.

Although he is a polished speaker, Laffer appears to be reining in his glib, shoot-from-the-hip style. He disavows a 1981 comment embracing “the freedom to smoke pot if we want to.” Laffer acknowledged having made the remark, but said: “I think I was probably showing off at the time–trying to show you don’t have to be a conservative on all issues to favor tax cuts.”

Other Laffer views reflect his coming of age as an undergraduate at Yale and a graduate student at Stanford during the turbulent ‘60s. He staunchly opposes the draft, contending that Vietnam-era draft resisters were the spiritual ancestors of today’s anti-tax movement. “The draft is a specific tax on your body,” Laffer said.

Still, Laffer rarely wanders from economic matters in his speeches and articles. He strongly supports the concept of a flat tax, predicting that some sort of bill equalizing personal-income tax rates will emerge from Congress this year.

‘Enterprise Zones’

Another Laffer idea that has been picked up and championed by the Reagan Administration is the establishment of inner-city “enterprise zones.” Corporations locating factories in such zones would get big tax breaks and relief from minimum-wage and other regulations. The economist argues that setting up such zones would break the cycle of poverty and dependency in urban ghettos.

Despite Laffer’s emphasis on economics, mainstream economists and even conservative allies question the quality of his scholarship. “He really wasn’t interested in the life of a scholar,” said George Stigler, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Business, where Laffer held his first teaching job. “Doing painstaking, detailed work wasn’t his game. He went for quick and glamorous results.”

It was a trauma at Chicago, Laffer said, that turned him away from academia and pointed him toward the business and public policy arenas. In 1971, some colleagues at Chicago accused Laffer, who hadn’t yet earned his Ph.D. from Stanford, of misleading a faculty committee that had earlier promoted him to full professor.

Laffer quickly finished up his Stanford doctoral dissertation and got the degree. “It was just a question of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s,” Laffer said, explaining that he never finished in the first place because he got swept away by his other commitments. A university committee headed by Stigler investigated the matter and found Laffer guilty of nothing worse than “carelessness,” Stigler says.

Career at a Standstill

Nonetheless, as Laffer tells it, lingering suspicion from the incident “put a stop to my career.” For the next five years, he didn’t get a raise at Chicago and academic journals shunned his articles. Suddenly, the boy wonder was a pariah. “So what do you do?” Laffer asked, “sit there and commit suicide? No, you find new avenues of expression.”

It was during this period that Laffer in 1974 sketched his now-famous curve for former journalist Jude Wanniski and an aide to President Gerald R. Ford on a cocktail napkin in a Washington restaurant. “He just scribbled it out,” Wanniski recalled, “and I thought it was a useful device for getting the message across.” The message (see chart) was a simple one: that cutting taxes could actually result in an increase in government revenues by creating incentives for people to work harder and save and invest more.

The curve didn’t gain notoriety until 1978, when Wanniski included it in his book “The Way the World Works: How Economies Fail and Succeed.” “At first,” Wanniski said, “Art was embarrassed by the name Laffer Curve–until he started to make a lot of money off it.”

Indeed, Laffer has used his high visibility to build his consulting company, A. B. Laffer Associates, into a multimillion-dollar enterprise with 20 full-time and 15 part-time employees. The firm has about 300 corporate clients who pay between $6,000 and $8,000 a year for Laffer’s economic analyses; special contracts added another $200,000 to the firm’s 1984 revenues, and about 85 speaking engagements by Laffer himself yielded $433,000.

Two Homes

Business profits and Laffer’s Pepperdine salary afford the family a comfortable life style in their antique-filled Rolling Hills Estates home and a 17-acre mountaintop retreat in Rancho Santa Fe. Such wealth is nothing new for Laffer; his late father was chairman of the board of Gould Inc., the big electronics concern, and young Arthur attended private day school in a prosperous Cleveland suburb before going on to Yale.

Despite Laffer’s commercial success, the jury is still out on his celebrated curve. Donald W. Kiefer, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, calls it “an overly simplistic approach which ignores complex economic relationships.” Critics say that the huge budget deficits that followed the Laffer-supported Kemp-Roth bill that reduced personal income taxes by 25% underscore the shortcomings of Laffer’s theory.

Laffer, on the other hand, blames delays in the tax cuts and increased government spending for the deficits. Besides, he argues, this year’s $200-billion deficit is neither “a crisis” nor “a panic situation” given the U.S. economy’s underlying vigor. Like Reagan (and unlike most economists), he believes that economic growth eventually will take care of the problem. Laffer gets to promote his economic views at periodic meetings of the President’s Economic Policy Advisory Board, of which he is a member.

Moved to California

In 1976, with his academic career going nowhere, Laffer gave up on Chicago and moved to USC. In California, he became a key supporter of 1978’s landmark real-estate tax-cutting initiative, Proposition 13. A year later, his first marriage broke up, the victim of Laffer’s four-day-a-week travel schedule. “I came home from a business trip and the kids told me my wife had been gone for three days,” Laffer recalled.

He met Traci Laffer when she was a political science major at USC moonlighting as a secretary to Dean Steele. The pair hit it off when they realized they shared a love for exotic birds. Laffer proposed to her in Paris and they were married in 1982 in an elaborate Beverly Hills wedding attended by 800 friends.

“I got a package deal,” Traci Laffer said, referring to the four children from Laffer’s previous marriage and the large collection of animals.

Laffer still travels frequently, often sleeping on “red eye” flights to the East Coast, doing his business and flying home that day. “He has this idea that you can, in effect, live two lives by cramming as much as possible into your finite number of years on Earth,” said Wanniski, who now operates his own competing economics consulting firm.

None of Laffer’s friends expect him to slow down anytime soon.

The catalog of unrequited hopes and hearts is a long one.

Captain Ahab went mad in his vengeful search for “Moby Dick.” Jay Gatsby’s ostentatious fortune failed to win the love of Daisy Buchanan. Charlie Brown never kicked the football.

Then there’s Texas, the land of broken Democratic dreams.

It’s been half a century since the party carried Texas in a presidential election. The last time Democrats won a statewide office, back in 1994, “The Lion King” was smashing box office records, Boyz II Men ruled the radio and the World Wide Web was about to change everything.

As Texas grew increasingly Republican, and politically beyond reach, Democrats insisted every election year was the one when they’d end their futility and take back power in either Washington or Austin, the state capital.

It never happened.

But is this, finally, the year?

With Ken Paxton stomping incumbent John Cornyn on Tuesday in a fierce and astronomically expensive U.S. Senate primary, many Democrats believe so — and even neutral observers agree they’ve been handed their best shot at resurrection in a good while.

“Paxton is going to be a much tougher guy [for Republicans] to haul over the finish line five months from now as opposed to Cornyn, who never lost an election until this one,” said Richard Murray, an emeritus political science professor at the University of Houston, who spent decades surveying Texas voters. “We’re looking at a very expensive, hard-fought race.”

Paxton, Texas’ three-term attorney general, is a singularly flawed candidate. Indicted, impeached, accused by his ex-wife of adultery, the GOP nominee is, to put it mildly, “an ethically challenged individual,” as the famously understated (and concerned) Republican Maine Sen. Susan Collins put it.

But Paxton was the choice of President Trump — he, too, of impeachment, indictment and adulterous infamy — and that settled that.

Trump described Cornyn, a four-term senator and former justice of the Texas Supreme Court, as a “good man” but insufficiently supportive when “times were tough.” Among those occasions of abandonment, Cornyn voted to certify the incontrovertible result of the 2020 presidential election, thwarting Trump’s bid to illegally stay in office.

The Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate is James Talarico, 37, a state representative from Austin and a Presbyterian seminarian and former public schoolteacher who’s built a nationwide following with his articulate and scriptural takedown of Republican foes. Imagine Beto O’Rourke with a clerical collar and capacity to mint money.

In 2018, O’Rourke came from seemingly nowhere and nearly upset Republican Ted Cruz in the closest Texas Senate race in decades. Before that it was the filibustering Wendy Davis who fired up Democratic imaginations nationwide. She commandeered the floor of the state Senate to briefly block antiabortion legislation — This is the year! — before falling well short in a 2014 bid for governor.

The key difference this time, with all due credit to Talarico and his prodigious fundraising, is his damaged-goods opponent. Normally, all it takes to win in Texas is a Republican ‘R’ beside a candidate’s name. But polling suggests a not-insignificant number of GOP voters could have a hard time supporting Paxton, which doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll back Talarico. They may simply not vote in the Senate race, which could be nearly as costly.

(The counterargument is that Paxton, a martyred hero to the MAGA movement, could boost turnout among the party base at a time Trump is leaking support within the establishment GOP.)

Either way, the president’s me-first political self-indulgence is not making things any easier for his fellow Republicans as they fight to hang on to control of the House and Senate in November.

In the 2022 midterm election, Trump boosted a batch of unappealing misfits — their sole attribute being their fealty to him — with poor results. Republicans lost eminently winnable Senate contests in Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania and, with it, their chance at control of the chamber.

Even if Paxton prevails in November, Trump’s endorsement could prove quite costly to the GOP, and not just in the figurative sense.

Democrats need a gain of four seats to flip the Senate. To do so, they must successfully defend seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire and then pick up at least four others from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and, now, Texas.

It’s a considerable reach. But Democratic chances look a lot better than they did just a few months ago, before Trump mired the country in an Iranian quagmire and the price of gas and just about everything else began to sail through the ceiling.

Holding on to Cornyn’s seat will end up costing Republicans a kingly sum — money that “can’t be spent in two places at the same time,” as Matt Mackowiak, a longtime Texas GOP strategist and advisor to Cornyn’s campaign, noted. “It can go either to Michigan, New Hampshire, Georgia, Iowa, Alaska. Or it can go here to Texas, which is extremely expensive.”

Odds are against Talarico and Democrats winning the Senate race in November, because Texas remains, fundamentally, a Republican and conservative-leaning state. Paxton may win for that reason and that reason alone.

“This is as good an environment as Democrats are going to get realistically,” said Jim Henson, head of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas in Austin, who’s witnessed many highly touted Democrats fail in a blaze of unwarranted hype. “But when you start doing the math, it’s a little bit hard to see it all adding up.”

Which is not to say it can’t happen.

Truth, as the saying goes, can be stranger than “Moby Dick” or any other fiction.

May 26 (UPI) — South Carolina’s state Senate adjourned Tuesday without acting on a new congressional map that would have redrawn voting districts in favor of Republicans.

President Donald Trump has called on states to redraw their voting maps to favor Republicans, especially after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that badly weakened a part of the landmark federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 that helped protect minority voting power.

However, as voters started heading to the polls Tuesday for the first in-person voting in primaries, state senators said it was just too late. If the state Senate pushed the map through Tuesday, the state would have had to throw out tens of thousands of ballots that had already been cast that day and schedule a new primary.

“Neither my conscience nor my common sense would allow me to stop an election that is already underway,” Republican state Sen. Richard Cash said during the vote, The BBC reported.

The new congressional map pitched for South Carolina would do away with the state’s only majority Black district, which is represented by Rep. James Clyburn, a Democrat. Clyburn is seeking his 18th term in office this year.

Republicans have a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Trump and other conservatives are calling for district changes to hold on to that majority during the midterm elections in November. Other states, including Tennessee, have already redrawn and approved new maps eliminating majority Black districts.

CNN reported that Trump called Republican state Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey at least twice about the plan, and the president has posted regularly on social media about the matter as well.

“South Carolina Republicans: BE BOLD AND COURAGEOUS, just like the Republicans of the Great State of Tennessee were last week!” the president wrote in a post earlier this month.

South Carolina state senators will likely pick up the matter again after the primary voting ends June 9. State Sen. Brad Hutto, a Democrat, said his party members worked all weekend to make voters headed out to the polls today, The New York Times reported.

“The people in South Carolina were sending us a message that their vote mattered,” he said. “It was important, and they didn’t want us to cancel their vote.”

Democrats had another win in the redistricting wars on Tuesday, with a federal court temporarily blocking Alabama from using its newly redrawn congressional map, which includes only one Black majority district out of seven. The population of Alabama is about 27% Black.

The South Carolina map in question, meanwhile, would have resulted in no Black majority districts out of the state’s seven. The state is about 26% Black, based on 2025 U.S. Census numbers.