How Rand Paul got sidelined by fellow Republicans
As chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rand Paul technically has jurisdiction over a central plank of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' But the Kentucky Republican's desire to aggressively cut the administration's request for border security spending has sidelined him in negotiations.
In an interview this week, Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham said that he has taken over as the lead negotiator in talks with bicameral leadership and the White House over how to deploy tens of billions of dollars to strengthen border security and reduce the flow of migrant encounters at the southern border into the United States.
Graham, a South Carolina Republican who released his own border security funding plan shortly after Paul introduced his, said he offered himself up to the Trump administration as the point person on the border security provisions of the megabill.
'Senator Paul usually votes 'no' and blames everybody else for not being pure enough,' said Graham, who has a long history of clashing with Paul over federal spending and foreign policy. 'As chairman, you … don't have that luxury sometimes. You have to do things as chairman you wouldn't have to do as a rank-and-file member.'
'Senator Paul's reducing the amount [for border security] didn't withstand scrutiny,' Graham added. 'The analysis was shallow.'
At the same time, the office of Senate GOP Conference Vice-Chair James Lankford of Oklahoma — also the chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Management, Federal Workforce and Regulatory Affairs — is planning to work directly with Senate leadership staff on the government affairs provisions, said a Senate Republican aide granted anonymity to describe internal party dynamics.
Paul has made clear repeatedly he isn't planning to vote for the party-line tax and spending bill anyway, giving leadership few reasons to try and play nice. Yet the decision by senior Senate Republicans to undermine a committee chair in such a way marks a dramatic departure from standard Senate procedure. It also reflects the extent to which Paul has become an ideological island, despite him holding a committee gavel thanks to the chamber's rules around seniority.
And in another break with precedent, few of Paul's own members on the Homeland Security panel, if any, appeared supportive of the chair's approach or willing to back him up against leadership's attempts to undermine him. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said it was concerning that Paul would draft his own proposal 'without any consultation of the committee.'
Hawley added he had 'never seen that happen before.'
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who sits on both the Homeland and Budget panels who described Paul as 'well-meaning' and 'principled,' said if Paul's goal was to change people's minds, the Kentuckian would have been better off working with fellow members of his conference.
'If your objective is just to have a point of view, that's one thing you can do; but if your objective is to rally support, then you have a different path,' Moreno said.
Paul has even lost an ally in Sen. Ron Johnson, another steadfast fiscal hawk who leadership hopes will ultimately support the megabill. Johnson said last week he will support the administration's border security funding request after hearing directly from Stephen Miller, a top White House adviser and architect of the president's immigration platform.
Graham said he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune requested that Miller brief Senate Republicans on the administration's border security needs to 'contest the analysis of Senator Paul.' Paul did not attend the briefing, nor has he spoken to Graham about their differences, according to Graham.
In a statement, Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, had no direct comment on Paul's exclusion from the process.
'The administration is profoundly grateful for Senator Graham and the Budget Committee's excellent work on the Homeland Security Text,' said Jackson, adding that it would aid Trump's actions to crack down on illegal border crossings by 'funding at least one million removals, adding new ICE and border personnel, expanding detention capacity, and giving bonuses to hardworking Border Patrol and ICE agents.'
The framework put forward by Graham, which Senate GOP leadership is expected to draw from in the final package they hope to vote on next week, would mirror the House-passed funding levels by allocating about $46.5 billion for the border wall and surrounding infrastructure and $5 billion for Customs and Border Protection facilities and checkpoints.
In contrast, Paul's proposal would allocate just $6.5 billion in border wall and related infrastructure funding, with only $2.5 billion for CBP facilities and checkpoints.
When asked about concerns he was operating without consulting his fellow Republicans on the panel, Paul emphasized that no committee is holding a markup on their contributions for the megabill.
'There were no committee votes on what the product would be,' Paul said. 'All of the drafts were done by the chairman of each committee.'
Paul also said he thought some of the provisions of his proposal unrelated to border security would end up in the final bill, and that he was involved in talks with the parliamentarian about what provisions would be germane under the strict rules governing the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process Republicans want to use to pass the megabill.
A Paul spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment about whether he still expected to have a say in negotiations with the parliamentarian.
Jordain Carney contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
19 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows
Support for renewables shrinks as fossil fuel interest grows Republicans and Democrats alike are less likely to support renewable energy than they were five years ago, according to a survey released June 5 by the Pew Research Center. Floodlight examines the survey results, which mirror growing pockets of opposition to solar farms, reignited political support for coal plants and moves by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to kill federally funded clean energy projects. This shift in opinion dates back to when Democratic President Joe Biden took office, said Brian Kennedy, Pew senior researcher and one of the study's authors. "This isn't a new trend," he said. Still, Kenneth Gillingham, professor of environmental and energy economics at the Yale School of the Environment, was surprised. "I see this shift … as a successful effort to link climate change and renewable energy to broader culture war issues," Gillingham said. He added that in the past, "prominent" Republicans supported renewables and sought solutions to climate change, but those stances could now be seen as "disloyal" to Trump. The survey of 5,085 U.S. adults taken April 28 to May 4 revealed that while 79% of Americans favored expanding wind and solar production in 2020, that number has dropped to 60%. And 39% of Americans today support expansion of oil, coal and natural gas - almost double the 20% that supported it in 2020. Combustion of fossil fuels - in transportation, energy generation and industrial production - is the No. 1 cause of climate change. Much of the change in opinion is driven by Republicans, whose support of oil and gas grew from 35% in 2020 to 67% today. But Democrats also indicated less support for renewable energy and more for fossil fuels than five years ago. While many results reflect Trump's policies opposing most renewables and boosting fossil fuels, Pew found a few notable exceptions: 69% of all respondents favor offshore wind - a technology Trump has specifically targeted. Both Democrats and Republicans indicated stronger support for nuclear power, with Republicans' favorable opinions increasing from 53% in 2020 to 69% in 2025. Democrats' support rose from 37% to 52%. The Trump administration has signaled support for a nuclear renaissance, despite its high cost. There were wide partisan splits on several topics. In March, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced it would scale back environmental regulations. Pew asked whether it was possible to do that and still protect air and water quality: 77% of Republicans said yes and 67% of Democrats said no. Pew didn't ask the respondents why their attitudes have shifted. But Kennedy said in Pew's past surveys, Republicans have expressed concern about the economic impacts of climate change policies and transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant and electric vehicle backer, said when the environmental benefits of clean technologies are touted, it polarizes Republicans. Instead, Murphy said messages should be about pocketbook issues - like lower fuel costs - and jobs. "It's hard for pro-climate people to understand," said Murphy, who has advised dozens of state and national GOP campaigns including John McCain's 2008 presidential bid. "(They think) we just need to shout louder and hit people over the head about climate, climate, climate. The key is you want to talk about jobs and national security and other events that naturally resonate a lot more with right-of-center people." That's what Murphy's groups, the EV Politics Project and the American EV Jobs Alliance, are trying to do to depoliticize electric vehicles. "Whenever electric cars are seen through a climate lens," Murphy said, "their appeal narrows." It's a strategy also being used by the Electrification Coalition, a left-of-center pro-EV group. Ben Prochazka, the coalition's executive director, echoed Murphy's strategy, adding that EVs have "become overly politicized and caught in the culture wars, impacting markets and ultimately hurting our ability to realize their many benefits for all Americans." Prochazka noted that once introduced to EVs, consumers support them: "EV drivers love their vehicles, with more than eight out of ten reporting that their next car will also be electric." Perhaps those practical messages are getting through. In the Pew survey, electric vehicles were the one item that saw an uptick in support - 4 percentage points in the past year. But popular support might not be enough to stop Congress from killing a $7,500 electric vehicle credit, which Murphy said would be "policy disaster." Republicans, he said, are in a "real squeeze," because "they don't have enough money for the tax cuts the president has promised." Murphy said: "It's easier for Republicans to cut Biden electric cars … than it is for them to cut more Medicaid." Gillingham is still optimistic that solar, wind and other greenhouse gas-reducing technologies will move forward - because they are the cheapest. "The continued decline in the price of renewable energy and battery technologies, as well as other new technologies, is a reason to continue to have hope that the worst impacts of climate change can be addressed," he said. Published by Canary Media, Renewable Energy World Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powers stalling climate action. This story was produced by Floodlight and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
San Francisco Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate 2020 election, reviving longstanding grievance
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden, repeating his baseless claim that the contest was marred by widespread fraud. 'Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD!' Trump said in a social media post in which he also sought to favorably contrast his immigration enforcement approach with that of the former president. 'The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!' Trump's post, made as his Republican White House is consumed by a hugely substantial foreign policy decision on whether to get directly involved in the Israel-Iran war, is part of an amped-up effort by him to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's presidency. Earlier this month, Trump directed his administration to investigate Biden's actions as president, alleging aides masked his predecessor's 'cognitive decline.' Biden has dismissed the investigation as 'a mere distraction.' The post also revives a long-running grievance by Trump that the election was stolen even though courts around the country and a Trump attorney general from his first term found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity arm pronounced the election 'the most secure in American history.' It was unclear what Trump had in mind when he called for a special prosecutor, but in the event Attorney General Pam Bondi heeds his call, she may face pressure to appoint someone who has already been confirmed by the Senate. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment Friday. The Justice Department in recent years has appointed a succession of special counsels — sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency — to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including into conduct by Biden and by Trump. Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case. That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court. ___
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California to examine its Amazon oil ties following pleas from Indigenous leaders from Ecuador
RICHMOND, California — An oil tanker sat docked at Chevron's sprawling refinery in Richmond on Thursday — a visible link between California's appetite for Amazon crude and the remote rainforest territories where it's extracted. Just offshore, bundled in puffy jackets against the Bay wind, Indigenous leaders from Ecuador's Amazon paddled kayaks through choppy waters, calling attention to the oil expansion threatening their lands. Their visit to California helped prompt the state Senate to introduce a landmark resolution urging officials to examine the state's role in importing crude from the Amazon. The move comes as Ecuador's government prepares to auction off 14 new oil blocks — covering more than 2 million hectares of rainforest, much of it Indigenous territory — in a 2026 bidding round known as 'Sur Oriente.' The Indigenous leaders say the move goes against the spirit of a national referendum in which Ecuadorians voted to leave crude oil permanently underground in Yasuni National Park. The preservation push in Ecuador comes as another South American country that includes part of the Amazon rainforest, Brazil, is moving ahead with plans to further develop oil resources. On Tuesday, Brazil auctioned off several land and offshore potential oil sites near the Amazon River as it aims to expand production in untapped regions despite protests from environmental and Indigenous groups. Juan Bay, president of the Waorani people of Ecuador, said that his delegation's coming to California was 'important so that our voices, our stance, and our struggle can be elevated' and urged Californians to reexamine the source of their crude from the Amazon — 'from Waorani Indigenous territory.' On Thursday, the Indigenous delegation joined local Californians in Richmond for a kayaking trip near a Chevron refinery, sharing stories about the Amazon and perspectives on climate threats. For Nadino Calapucha, a spokesperson for the Kichwa Pakkiru people, the visit to California's Bay Area was deeply moving. Spotting seals in the water and a bird's nest nearby felt ¨like a gesture of solidarity from nature itself,' he told The Associated Press on a kayak. 'It was as if the animals were welcoming us,' he said. The connection between the Amazon and California — both facing environmental threats — was palpable, Calapucha said. 'Being here with our brothers and sisters, with the local communities also fighting — in the end, we feel that the struggle is the same,' he said. California is the largest global consumer of Amazon oil, with much of it refined and used in the state as fuel. Ecuador is the region's top producer of onshore crude. Bay highlighted a March 2025 ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found that Ecuador had violated the rights of the area's Indigenous groups by allowing oil operations in and around a site known as Block 43. The court ordered the government to halt extraction in protected areas and uphold the 2023 referendum banning drilling in Yasuni National Park, where the country's largest crude reserve lies, estimated at around 1.7 billion barrels. Bay appealed to the California government to reconsider if it 'should continue receiving crude from the Amazon' — or continue to be 'complicit in the violation of rights' happening on Indigenous territory. State Senator Josh Becker, who introduced the new resolution, praised the visiting leaders for defending both their land and the global climate. 'Their communities are on the front lines asserting their rights and resisting oil extraction,' Becker said on the Senate floor on Monday. 'They are defenders of a living rainforest that stores carbon, regulates the global climate, and sustains life.' Long criticized by environmental justice advocates, the refinery has processed millions of barrels of Amazon crude, fueling concerns over pollution, public health, and the state's role in rainforest destruction. The delegation also helped launch a new report by Amazon Watch, an Oakland-based non-profit dedicated to the protection of the Amazon Basin, which outlines the climate, legal and financial risks of operating in Indigenous territories without consent. Kevin Koenig, Amazon Watch's director for climate, energy and extraction industry, said the impacts of Amazon crude extend far beyond Ecuador. He joined the Ecuadorian delegation on the kayaking trip on Thursday. 'The Golden State, if it wants to be a climate leader, needs to take action,' he told AP. 'California has an addiction to Amazon crude.' Californians need to 'recognize their responsibility and their complicity in driving demand for Amazon crude and the impact that that is having on Indigenous people, on their rights, on the biodiversity and the climate,' he added. California's future is closely tied to the Amazon's — the state relies on the rainforest's role in climate regulation and rainfall, Koenig said, warning that continued Amazon crude imports contribute to the very destruction increasing California's vulnerability to drought and wildfires. He said environmental and public health damage tied to oil drilling is not confined to South America. 'We're seeing the same impacts from the oil well to the wheel here in California, where communities are suffering from contamination, health impacts, dirty water,' he said. 'It's time that California lead an energy transition.' California, one of the world's largest economies and a major importer of Amazon crude, must take stronger climate action, Koenig added and called on the state to phase out its reliance on oil linked to deforestation, human rights abuses, pollution, and climate damage. The resolution commends the Indigenous communities of Ecuador for their struggle in defending the rainforest and Indigenous rights. It also marks the first time California would examine how its energy consumption may contribute to the region's deforestation and cultural loss. The resolution is expected to be up for a vote within a few weeks, according to Koenig. Grattan and Vasquez write for the Associated Press.
