Murkowski book with ‘fervent' appeal for bipartisanship planned for June
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is penning a bipartisanship-focused memoir that calls for compromise amid a deeply divided Congress.
'Far From Home' details how Murkowski 'learned to adapt to the harsh climate of Washington, D.C., and issues a fervent appeal for a politics grounded in compromise and compassion' publisher Forum Books said in promotional materials released this week.
The Last Frontier State's senior senator, the publisher said, 'has repeatedly stood at the center of our nation's most challenging issues, serving as a swing vote and a voice willing to challenge the president, regardless of who holds the office.'
In remarks this week, Murkowski urged fellow senators not to give up their legislative authority.
She said it's possible to be a '100-percent supporter of President Trump and still stand up for the institution of the Senate, for the legislative branch, with our authorities that are prescribed to us specifically by the Constitution.'
The 67-year-old lawmaker's memoir, poised to be released on June 24, was 'written at a time when Americans' trust in their institutions is in crisis,' and will offer a 'candid account of how things get done in Washington.'
'My purpose in writing is to show what I learned along the way,' Murkowski said in a statement, according to The Associated Press.
'I want to revive your hope that it is possible for our democracy to function again as a forum for Americans of goodwill to collectively solve our problems and protect our liberties,' she said.
The publisher called 'Far From Home' an 'uplifting narrative for anyone seeking reassurance that our political system can still work.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
23 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Public Rebuke of Tulsi Gabbard's Statement on Iran
President Donald Trump has said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was "wrong" to say that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. When asked about the claims made by his intelligence community, specifically Gabbard, Trump was clear, telling reporters on Friday: 'She's wrong.' In March, Gabbard testified in front of Congress that the intelligence community [IC] 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor, closely, if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." The testimony has resurfaced as Trump weighs his options regarding a potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, as the Middle Eastern countries trade deadly missiles after Israel launched an operation against Iranian military targets and nuclear facilities on June 13. Read More: Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be 'Very Dangerous for Everybody' Trump's latest comments echo those he made to reporters on Air Force One on June 17, when he said he did not 'care' about what Gabbard had testified earlier in the year. 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having one,' Trump said of his belief that Iran was inching towards having a nuclear weapon. Central to Trump's stance regarding Israel's initial assault on Iran is his belief that Iran has been moving closer to nuclear capability. He has plainly said that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' Trump's stance, bolstered by a May 31 International Atomic Energy Agency report (that stated Iran had accumulated roughly 120 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, dangerously close to weapons-grade levels of 90%), undermines previous reports by U.S. intelligence, including that of Gabbard, a former Democrat. Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War In response to Trump's new assertion that she was 'wrong' in her previous testimony, Gabbard took to social media on Friday, stating that her words had been taken out of context by "dishonest media." Gabbard maintains that she and Trump are on the same page. "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Attached to the post was a longer video of her testimony, which also included her claims that 'Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' Read More: The 5 Groups Hoping to Sway Trump on Iran Trump reportedly still has 'full confidence' in his intelligence team, according to White House communications director Steven Cheung, but the open disagreements between Trump and members of his Administration signal splinters over the Israel-Iran conflict. The President is facing questions from both within and outside the Republican party, as he weighs up his options during a self-imposed two-week deadline about whether the U.S. will intervene, despite him campaigning on staying out of wars overseas. Republican lawmakers Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have both openly disapproved of any potential U.S. military intervention. Read More: Breaking Down the Feud Between Trump and Tucker Carlson Amid Divide Over Israel-Iran Conflict Meanwhile, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson—a long-time ally of Trump, who even hit the campaign trail with him in 2024—has also spoken out against any U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Carlson's initial comments prompted a blistering response from Trump, and their disagreement soon took a personal turn as the feud escalated. While the situation appears to have since settled—Trump said Carlson called and apologized for his 'strong' words—it's clear that the subject of the Israel-Iran conflict and how the U.S. should move forward is proving to be a divisive one.
Chicago Tribune
33 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
Los Angeles Times
39 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Texas family detention center witnesses describe adults fighting kids for clean water
McALLEN, Texas — Adults fighting kids for clean water, despondent toddlers, and a child with swollen feet denied a medical exam: These first-hand accounts from immigrant families at detention centers included in a motion filed by advocates Friday night are offering a glimpse of conditions at Texas facilities. Families shared their testimonies with immigrant advocates filing a lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from terminating the Flores settlement agreement, a 1990s-era policy that requires immigrant children detained in federal custody be held in safe and sanitary conditions. The agreement could challenge President Trump's family detention provisions in his massive tax and spending bill, which also seeks to make the detention time indefinite and comes as the administration ramps up arrests of immigrants nationwide. 'At a time when Congress is considering funding the indefinite detention of children and families, defending the Flores Settlement is more urgent than ever,' Mishan Wroe, a senior immigration attorney at the National Center for Youth Law, said in a statement Friday. Advocates with the center, as well as the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, RAICES and Children's Rights contacted or visited children and their families held in two Texas family detention centers in Dilley and Karnes, which reopened this year. The conditions of the family detention facilities were undisclosed until immigration attorneys filed an opposing motion Friday night before a California federal court. The oversight of the detention facilities was possible because of the settlement, and the visits help ensure standards of compliance and transparency, said Sergio Perez, the executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. Without the settlement, those overseeing the facilities would lose access to them and could not document what is happening inside. Out of 90 families who spoke to RAICES, an immigration legal support group, since March, 40 expressed medical concerns, according to the court documents. Several testimonies expressed concern over water quantity and quality. Emailed messages seeking comment were sent to the office of U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and to CoreCivic and Geo Group, the private prison companies that operate the detention facilities in Dilley and Karnes, respectively. There was no response from Bondi's office or the operators of the facilities as of midday Saturday. One mother was told she would have to use tap water for formula for her 9-month-old, who had diarrhea for three days after. A 16-year-old girl described people scrambling over one another for water. 'We don't get enough water. They put out a little case of water, and everyone has to run for it,' said the declaration from the girl held with her mother and two younger siblings at the Karnes County Immigration Processing Center. 'An adult here even pushed my little sister out of the way to get to the water first.' Faisal Al-Juburi, chief external affairs officer for RAICES, said Friday in a statement that the conditions 'only serve to reinforce the vital need for transparent and enforceable standards and accountability measures,' citing an 'unconscionable obstruction of medical care for those with acute, chronic, and terminal illnesses.' One family with a young boy with cancer said he missed his doctor's appointment after the family was arrested after they attended an immigration court hearing. He is now experiencing relapse symptoms, according to the motion. Another family said their 9-month-old lost more than 8 pounds while in detention for a month. Children spoke openly about their trauma during visits with legal monitors, including a 12-year-old boy with a blood condition. He reported that his feet became too inflamed to walk, and even though he saw a doctor, he was denied further testing. Now, he stays mostly off his feet. 'It hurts when I walk,' he said in a court declaration. Arrests have left psychological trauma. A mother of a 3-year-old boy who saw agents go inside his babysitter's home with guns started acting differently after detention. She said he now throws himself on the ground, bruises himself and refuses to eat most days. Many of the families in detention were already living in the U.S., reflecting the recent shift from immigration arrests at the border to internal operations. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and main architect of Trump's immigration policies, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers would target at least 3,000 arrests a day, up from about 650 a day during the first few months of Trump's second term. Leecia Welch, the deputy legal director at Children's Rights, said that as bad as facility conditions are, they will only get worse as more immigrants are brought in. 'As of early June, the census at Dilley was around 300, and only two of its five areas were open,' Welch said of her visits. 'With a capacity of around 2,400, it's hard to imagine what it would be like with 2,000 more people.' Pediatricians such as Dr. Marsha Griffin with the American Academy of Pediatrics Council said they are concerned and are advocating across the country to allow pediatric monitors with child welfare experts inside the facilities. The Flores agreement is poised to become more relevant if Trump's tax and spending legislation, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passes with the current language allowing the indefinite detention of immigrant families, which is not allowed under the Flores agreement. Trump's legislation approved by the House also proposes setting aside $45 billion in funding, a threefold spending increase, over the next four years to expand ICE detention of adults and families. The Senate is now considering the bill. Under these increased efforts to add more detention space, Geo Group, the corporation operating the detention facility in Karnes, will soon be reopening an infamous prison — which housed gangsters Al Capone and Machine Gun Kelly — for migrant detention in Leavenworth, Kan. Immigration advocates argue that if the settlement were terminated, the government would need to create regulations that conform to the agreement's terms. 'Plaintiffs did not settle for policy making — they settled for rulemaking,' the motion read. The federal government will have a chance to submit a reply brief. A court hearing is scheduled for mid-July. Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.
