It's all over but the judging: After a hard-fought session, the judges score the rounds

There are certain traditions with Sine Die: Balloons and confetti litter the chambers, as they did here in 2024, and Maryland Matters assesses the winners and losers from the 90-day session. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)
Boy are we glad that's over.
The 2025 legislative session was a slog. Perhaps the most important, fatiguing and demoralizing 90 days in a generation. But there was one last thing to do: The Maryland Matters staff fanned out to talk to lawmakers, advocates, lobbyists and others who say they know what's going on about who won, who lost and who more or less broke even.
In many cases, the answer to our question was another question: Did anyone really win this year?
Matt Losak, executive director for the Montgomery County Renters Alliance, said he found it hard to pick winners, given the tight budget and unanticipated moves from the Trump administration.
'It's less like a session of winners, and more like a session of survivors,' he said earlier this week.
Even so, we managed to produce the list for 2025. We understand that these lists can be viewed in the same way as a list of 'top 100 rock songs.' Some will say it's just perception.
But this is politics, where perception is every bit as important and real as reality.
Sen. Guy Guzzone and Dels. Ben Barnes and Vanessa Atterbeary: The fiscal commitee chairs in the House and Senate have thrown some sharp elbows in recent years. But faced with the toughest budget challenge in years, they regularly worked together to craft a budget compromise without the public drama. And education advocates credit Barnes and Atterbeary for protecting funding for English-language learners, low-income and special education students, speaking out early against cuts and meeting with advocates, parents and students.
Senate President Bill Ferguson: The guiding hand on the budget crisis and energy reform, described by some as an almost governor-like figure who maintained discipline in the Senate.
Developmental disabilities advocates: They quickly mobilized, lobbied and brought hundreds to Annapolis to rally against some $457 million in cuts to the agency that oversees their services. Their efforts paid off, and helped claw back $292.48 million of those cuts. Advocates say the remaining $164 million cut will be painful but survivable. That they still were dealt cuts could argue for them to be bumped down to a 'push,' but most who watched the effort put the DDA community squarely in the 'win' column,
Transportation advocates: They got a projected $500 million annual infusion to the beleaguered Transportation Trust Fund.
Larry Hogan: Maybe he's going to run for a third term. Maybe not. Who knows? But the Republican former governor got some help from a stilted economy, slash-and-burn budgeting in D.C., and a new cadre of tax and fee increases. So much so that Hogan might be thinking this looks a lot like 2014. And it hasn't gone unnoticed by Democrats.
NoMoore.org: This 'shadowy' anti-Moore website and social media campaign has managed to move in on the second floor of the State House and live rent-free in the heads of some of the governor's staff, despite having less reach than Hogan's former 'Change Maryland' effort. Running battles on social media and proxy investigation requests gave oxygen to a political effort many had yet to notice.
Dels. C.T. Wilson and Brian Crosby: The duo passionately defended the energy package on the House floor, and they got several of their bills woven into the package, including regulations on solar siting, a separate electricity rate for data centers and a new long-term energy planning office. Several of those we talked to also gave a tip of the cap to Del. Lorig Charkoudian — the Montgomery Democrat has been steeped in energy policy for years, and played a prominent role this year, getting several provisions of her affordable clean energy bill into the leadership package.
Legislative Black Caucus: The 66-member caucus didn't get everything it wanted, but it did rack up the major pieces: The Second Look Act that provides some incarcerated individuals a second chance at life; expansion of the Prescription Drug Affordability Board; reforms to the medical and geriatric parole process; and the creation of a Reparations Commission, making Maryland one of the few states to have one. The caucus also successfully pushed back against the governor's plan to freeze funding for community schools as part of the reforms to the Blueprint for Maryland's Future.
Sen. Charles Sydnor and Del. Cheryl Pasteur: The two Baltimore County Democrats offered emotional — and unexpected — testimony in suppor of the Second Look Act. They didn't get all that they wanted in the legislation, but they received praise from colleagues and advocates for having the courage to 'stand up for what's right.'
The Maryland Licensed Beverage Association and the alcohol industry and lobby: An effort to expand beer and wine sales to grocery stores and other retailers ran into the buzz saw that is the 'three-tier system' of wholesalers, distributors and retailers in Maryland. The governor's support was a nonfactor. The issue is assured to come back, which means continued fundraising opportunities for some.
A boy and his mineral: Who doesn't love a good underdog story? David Shore started as a 9-year-old Montgomery County boy with a dream of making chromite the official state mineral. He parlayed that into a sponsor in the House and Senate, and a pro-bono (and well known) Annapolis lobbyist. Eight short years later, we can raise a glass to Shore and to chromite (both of whom will be featured in a PBS documentary about the State House next year). May we suggest an Orange Crush, which was going to die as the official state cocktail until it was added to the chromite bill and passed with seconds to spare on Sine Die.
House and Senate Republicans: They are still heavily outnumbered, but the minority party in both chambers was praised — by non-Republicans — for its ability to get its message out, with House Republicans getting special mention for their use of social media. The GOP also got some Democrats to vote with them on some key budget and other votes. Most notably, five Senate Democrats — Dawn Gile, Shaneka Henson, Katie Fry Hester, Carl Jackson and Mary-Dulany James — sided with Senate Republicans on a budget measure. Sen. Jack Bailey of Southern Maryland got an amendment approved that's now included in the Second Look Act, one of the major criminal justice reform bills presented this year. Although Bailey voted against the entire measure, his amendment still made it through.
Maryland residents: A consistent theme in our reporting on this was the comment (or some variation): 'Did anyone really win?' The same angst lawmakers have about federal actions weighs on the average resident and small-business owner. Worried about the economy, keeping a job, a recession? Yup, that too. Electricity costs are up and will go up again this summer. Taxpayers lucky enough to get a cut will likely not swoon over the average $60 tax refund. Same for the credit on utility bills, which is advertised as roughly $80 (broken in two payouts). Some will see more, but some will see less, as actual credits will be based on average usage. Buying a new car got more expensive, so did titling it and putting tires on it. The data and IT tax will hit everyone, not just businesses, and there's a tax on vending machine sales. Sports gaming and cannabis taxes also went up.
Wes Moore: For the first two years, Moore capitalized on the goodwill from his historic election and a return to Democratic control of state government for the first time in eight years. He's smart, telegenic and a charismatic speaker. The shine, however, may be wearing thin. That includes a couple of sagging (but still above 50%) job performance polls and a middling record on 2025 legislative priorities, with some bills watered down and others stripped for parts. His tax modernization proposal was recast. The governor demanded that a bill to sell beer and wine in grocery stores and other retailers land on his desk by the end of session; lawmakers deep-sixed those bills into committee drawers.
Moore's dismount was to send an email six minutes after the close of the session in which he cited the wins, but chided the legislature for missing opportunities to make the state more business-friendly and to add nuclear to the clean energy effort. He also issued a veiled threat to not sign (veto?) bills that did not rise to his three legislative benchmarks. A number of lawmakers — Democrats — were not happy with the email.
Moore is still considered a top-tier potential presidential candidate with a donor call list and connections rivaled by few. That race is in 2028. Moore faces a re-election contest for a 2026 campaign that will begin in earnest this year. And it remains to be seen how the public will react to what was done this session.
Renter protections: Renter protections ran up against the state's desire to create a more developer-friendly market to address the state's housing shortage. Efforts to pass renter protections known as 'good cause' evictions fell short once again, after housing developers claimed the measure would drive new projects out of the state. Renter advocates disagree, but Senate President Bill Ferguson worries passing good cause eviction bills would affect future housing projects — making the road to passage more challenging. Other renter protection bills that did pass were watered down as well.
House decorum: Lawmakers are no longer called on by their districts when they rise to speak. The tone and tenor of debates is more bitter and rancorous than in recent memory (see 'Freedom Caucus' in Push section below). It does not bode well for 2026 and the coming election.
Parole process reform: Dels. Elizabeth Embry and N. Scott Phillips sought to reform the parole process in a state that ranks among the worst in the nation when it comes to the Black prison population. The House agreed, passing two of their parole reform parole bills. Both bill received hearings before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, they never made it to the full Senate.
Child Victims Act: It took a decade to pass landmark legislation that opened the courthouse doors for people who were abused as children in public and private institutions but time-barred from seeking civil remedies. Approval of the act forced the Archdiocese of Baltimore to seek bankruptcy protections. This year, it was the state's turn to feel the heat as thousands of cases began to surface, a potential liability under the act of billions, if not tens of billions, of dollars — a potential budge-breaker. So lawmakers changed the law to impose lower caps on lawsuits filed after May 31, 2025. Many Democrats in committee lamented the choice they had to make. Some cried. Others stormed out. But the bill passed and heads to the governor's desk for his signature. And the political policy arm of the Catholic Church? They publicly chided the state for being 'the largest employer of child sex abusers in the state.'
A purgatory for those who had some wins and some losses but not enough of either to put them in either of the above categories.
Local governments: The legislature pushed costs of teacher pensions and property tax assessments down onto the counties to solve its own budget issues. Then they got a helping hand in the form of the ability to increase the piggyback income tax from 3.2% to 3.3%. Only about one-third of the state's 24 major political subdivisions are maxed out on the current cap. In the current climate, such increases could be a political mixed bag.
The business community: The Democratic supermajority touts its support for small businesses while vilifying owners as bad actors and foisting fees and regulations and taxes on them, even as lawmakers and Moore look for ways to end the state's company town dependence on the federal government. Business leaders and advocates did manage to beat a very large business-to-business sales tax proposal into a much smaller one. That effort landed on a services sales tax on IT and data that will cost everyone, not just business owners.
Del. Nino Mangione: The Baltimore County Republican somehow managed to fly under the radar enough to avoid having to answer any questions about his cousin Luigi, who faces a potential death penalty from federal prosecutors related to the killing of a United Healthcare executive.
Environmentalists: For environmental advocates, this year was mostly about mitigating the bad. They fought to water down incentives for new gas power plants, and found some success, but the bill could still expedite gas generation. This year also saw rollbacks of the building energy program and electric vehicle sales targets (via an 11th-hour executive order). But advocates notched some wins in the larger energy legislation: Nixing a clean-energy subsidy for trash incinerators and reforming gas pipeline spending by utilities had both been on their wishlists for years. They walk away with bruised knuckles, and a new feeling that the ground beneath them is shaky. But they have victories to point to — and it could have been much worse.
Immigrant protections: President Donald Trump repeated his determination to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, stoking fear in Maryland's migrant communities and presenting advocates with a big challenge. They had limited success. Advocates with CASA felt their safety and protection were not prioritized, as lawmakers rushed through a handful of watered-down protections in some public spaces and for data protection in the final minutes of session. But they rejected the measure advocates said would have given undocumented residents the greatest protection from increased immigration enforcement: A ban on 287(g) agreements, in which local police can essentially act as federal immigration agents.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
The House Freedom Caucus. These are not the Republicans others cite for erffective messaging (see Winners section above). The seven-member splinter group of House Republicans some some notice from the press for their disruptive rhetoric, and they got an infusion of institutional firepower from Rep. Andy Harris (R-1st) — chair of the congressional Freedom Caucus — and Republican former Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. But their act made no friends with Democrats in the supermajority. Looming in the interim is the prospect of committee reassignments in order to spread members out among the six standing committees in the House where three members are on Health and Government Operation and two others serve on Judiciary. It remains to be seen if the group can expand its ranks in the House, or knock off some GOP senators whom they have described as RINOs (though they have not named names). Also unknown is whether the group can add more to legislative debates than strenuous objections to things the larger Republican Caucus is already pushing back on.
Beer and wine sales expansion. Yeah, we know we said above that the Maryland Licensed Beverage Association was a winner, but we still think the concept of expanded sales was a push this year. (We haven't been drinking, we promise.) It's popular and has the support of a governor who demanded it land on his desk, even though his promise to do more than 'whip votes' did not materialize. A line in the sand angered legislative leaders rather than build a coalition. Some of the most important lawmakers did not know the governor's thoughts until they heard it from a reporter. That said, even though you cannot buy beer and wine in a grocery (or convenience) store, chances are there are lots of options nearby if not in the same shopping centers or even delivery.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

19 minutes ago

• Yahoo

4 Ways Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Will Change How You Plan for Retirement

President Donald Trump's signature legislation, dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' includes plans for tax cuts, green energy cuts, Medicaid cuts and more. It also contains new retirement account provisions that could affect how Americans plan for their golden years. Be Aware: Read Next: As the landmark bill makes its way from the House to the Senate, here's a look at what you need to understand about how it can affect how you plan for retirement. Many Americans would receive a break on their taxes owed if the bill is passed. This means they would be able to channel more money into retirement savings accounts. 'Retirement planning fundamentally comes down to having sufficient resources to make work optional,' said Brett Horowitz, principal and wealth manager at Evensky & Katz / Foldes Financial Wealth Management. 'The proposed extensions of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act provisions, combined with new deductions for tip income, overtime pay and seniors over 65, could significantly improve retirement outcomes for Americans.' Those who benefited from the cuts in the original Tax Cuts & Jobs Act will continue to enjoy these cuts, allowing them to continue saving for retirement as they had been. 'With many TCJA provisions set to expire at the end of 2025, the House Republican proposal to make these extensions permanent may provide the certainty we need for effective long-term planning,' Horowitz said. 'Retirement modeling depends on clear inputs and stable variables,' he continued. 'The less uncertainty in tax policy, the more accurately we can project success rates. When these changes take effect — pending Senate approval — we'll be able to deliver much better news to clients about their retirement timeline.' Horowitz believes if Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' does not ultimately pass, it could negatively affect Americans' abilities to save for retirement. 'There's a profound psychological difference between telling someone they can retire earlier than expected versus having to extend their working years,' he said. 'The former energizes people about their financial future; the latter can feel overwhelming. These tax provisions create the conditions where more Americans can realistically achieve comfortable retirement.' Learn More: Savvy long-term investment strategies should take taxes into account, so changes to tax laws can shift these strategies. 'Smart investing isn't actually about chasing the highest gross returns — it's about maximizing what clients actually keep after taxes and expenses, and this tax bill addresses some issues there,' Horowitz said. 'While we can control costs through low-fee funds, tax efficiency requires a more nuanced approach that varies by everyone's personal circumstances. 'Higher tax rates push us toward tax-free municipal bonds and tax-efficient ETFs in taxable accounts, while we place tax-inefficient investments in retirement accounts,' he continued. 'This 'tax location' strategy can significantly impact net returns, even if it means accounts perform differently.' 'Two provisions in the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act have created the most anxiety for our clients — the SALT deduction cap and estate tax exemptions,' Horowitz said. 'Both are getting significant relief under the current proposal.' The proposed increase in the SALT deduction cap means retirees will face less of a penalty if they choose to spend their golden years in a state with higher income taxes. 'The SALT deduction increase from $10,000 to $40,000 will reshape where people choose to live and retire,' Horowitz said. 'We've already seen migration patterns shift dramatically since 2017, with high-tax states losing residents to states like Florida and Texas. This change reduces the penalty for living in high-income-tax states, though it doesn't eliminate the advantage of no-tax states entirely.' Estate planning strategies would also change for many Americans if the bill were to pass. 'On the estate side, the current $13.99 million exemption was set to drop to $7.14 million in 2026 — a reduction that had wealthy clients scrambling to implement complex gifting strategies and trust structures,' Horowitz said. 'The proposed permanent increase to $15 million per person, or $30 million for couples, provides enormous relief for families in that middle tier.' This is particularly important because of state-level complications, Horowitz continued. 'Take New York, where you could face no federal estate tax, but still owe state estate taxes on estates between $7.16 million and $13.99 million,' he said. 'The interplay between federal and state rules makes domicile planning critical.' The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' should make estate planning less complex for many people. 'For clients who've already implemented sophisticated estate planning strategies, those structures remain valuable,' Horowitz said. 'But for families with estates under the new thresholds, this eliminates the pressure to make rushed gifting decisions or create complex trusts simply to avoid tax cliffs.' Overall, Horowitz believes the bill will make retirement planning easier. 'The permanent nature of these changes — assuming they pass — finally gives families the certainty to make long-term decisions about where to live, how to structure their wealth and when to implement estate planning strategies,' he said. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on 4 Ways Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Change How You Plan for Retirement Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Fox News

19 minutes ago

• Fox News

Top Trump health official slams Democrats for 'misleading' claims about Medicaid reform

FIRST ON FOX: A top Trump White House official is looking to undercut Senate Democrats' talking points on Medicaid, arguing that the GOP's plan to reform the healthcare program would benefit rural hospitals, not harm them. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz told Fox News Digital that "special interests are pushing misleading talking points to try and stop the most ambitious healthcare reforms ever." Oz's sentiment comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Senate Republicans sprint to finish their work on President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline. Part of the bill from the Senate Finance Committee aims to make good on the GOP's promise to root out waste, fraud and abuse within the widely used healthcare program by including work requirements and booting illegal immigrants from benefit rolls, among other measures. Tweaks to the Medicaid provider tax rate have ruffled feathers on both sides of the aisle. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., sent a letter to Trump and the top congressional Republicans last week warning that changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate would harm over 300 rural hospitals. And a cohort of Senate Republicans were furious with the change after the bill dropped last week. But Oz contended that "only 5%" of inpatient Medicaid spending happens in rural communities, and that the mammoth bill "instead targets abuses overwhelmingly utilized by large hospitals with well-connected lobbyists." "We are committed to preserving and improving access to care in rural communities with a transformative approach that bolsters advanced technology, invests in infrastructure, and supports workforce — rather than propping up a system that mostly benefits wealthier urban areas," Oz said. Schumer's letter included data from a study recently conducted by the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at his behest. He warned that if the bill is passed as is, millions of people would be kicked off of their healthcare coverage, and "rural hospitals will not get paid for the services they are required by law to provide to patients." Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer, Wyden and Merkley for comment. However, another report from the Trump-aligned Paragon Health Institute argued similarly to Oz that special interest groups and healthcare lobbyists were "flooding the airwaves with claims" that Republicans' changes to Medicaid would shutter rural hospitals. For example, they argued that a recent report from the Center for American Progress warned that over 200 rural hospitals would be at risk of closure, but that the findings were based on changes to the federal medical assistance percentage, or the amount of Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government. Changes to that percentage were mulled by congressional Republicans but were not included in the "big, beautiful bill." Still, the changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate, which were a stark departure from the House GOP's version of the bill, angered the Republicans who have warned not to make revisions to the healthcare program that could shut down rural hospitals and boot working Americans from their benefits. The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House's freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states, and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%. However, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is working on a possible change to the bill that would create a provider relief fund that could sate her and other Republicans' concerns about the change to the provider tax rate.

Yahoo

24 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) listens during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2025. Credit - Kayla Bartkowski—Getty Images She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them. Write to Nik Popli at