Playbook PM: Why Republicans' megabill deadline could slip
Presented by
THE CATCH-UP
FORLORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY: Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) dumped some cold water on Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline to deliver their sprawling megabill to President Donald Trump's desk.
'I think a lot of us would be surprised if it passed by July 4,' Curtis said at the POLITICO Energy Summit, per POLITICO's Kelsey Brugger. 'I think that's a false deadline. I don't think that we need to put a specific deadline on it. Let's get it right.'
A message for Musk: Curtis also downplayed any perceived influence that Elon Musk has over negotiations among Senate Republicans amid the billionaire tech mogul's ardent campaign against the megabill.
'If he would stop and slow down and realize the way Washington works, because what he does with a business is very different in the culture and everything is so different than what we do in Washington, D.C.,' Curtis said, adding that there's 'a lot we could learn from him and vice versa.'
Curtis also shrugged as to why exactly Musk has recently targeted the bill. 'I'm a U.S. senator voting on this bill, and I don't know why he hates it. You can see how he's missed an opportunity,' Curtis said.
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, had similar words for Musk this morning, saying that the ex-DOGE head didn't voice any concerns over the bill when he had the chance.
Guthrie and Musk met over breakfast just hours after the House passed the bill, and 'he never mentioned the bill that morning,' Guthrie said at the summit, per POLITICO's Kelsey Tamborrino. Instead, he said, Musk talked about competition with China to dominate AI.
Guthrie also addressed Musk's generic threats to primary Republicans who back the bill, once again downplaying the influence of the world's richest man against that of the GOP flagbearer.
'I assume that if [Musk] chooses somebody to primary, President Trump would probably take the opposite side, and in my district ... if I had that problem, I think President Trump would be a good person to come campaign in my district,' Guthrie said.
More highlights:
HAPPENING TODAY: New Jersey voters are heading to the polls for the state's gubernatorial primaries. For the GOP, Jack Ciattarelli is the leading candidate. But the Democratic primary is the race to keep an eye on: Despite Rep. Mikie Sherrill's frontrunner status, five other candidates all have a legitimate path to the nomination. POLITICO's Madison Fernandez and Daniel Han have more on what to watch tonight
Good Tuesday afternoon. Thanks for reading Playbook PM. Drop me a line at gross@politico.com.
9 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
1. THE LATEST ON LA: Trump's decision to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to a string of protests over the administration's immigration actions will likely cost $134 million, the Pentagon's budget chief told lawmakers this morning, POLITICO's Connor O'Brien and Joe Gould report. 'Acting Pentagon comptroller Bryn MacDonnell, testifying at a House budget hearing on Tuesday alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said the estimate covers costs such as travel, housing and food. … Hegseth sparred with Democrats during the hearing in defense of the deployment, arguing Newsom and Bass, both Democrats, mishandled the situation.'
Survey says: A new YouGov poll finds that Trump's deployment of Marines to Los Angeles is deeply unpopular, with a 47 percent disapproval mark, compared with 34 percent who approve. Dispatching the National Guard isn't much better: 45 percent disapprove and 38 percent approve. See the full results
Disinformation digest: 'Fake Images and Conspiracy Theories Swirl Around L.A. Protests,' by NYT's Steven Lee Myers
2. ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: The World Bank said this morning that U.S. economic growth 'may halve this year as a result of President Trump's tariff policies, while the global economy is set to suffer a more modest, but still significant, slowdown,' per WSJ's Paul Hannon. The projection says the U.S. will 'grow by just 1.4% in 2025, a sharp deceleration from the 2.8% expansion recorded in 2024' and global 'output to grow by 2.3% this year and 2.4% the next, having previously projected an expansion of 2.7% in each year.' Caution sign: 'The World Bank warned that the slowdown in both the U.S. and global economies could be more severe if tariffs were increased further from the levels that prevailed in late May.'
What Trump will like: But the World Bank also 'effectively endorsed President Donald Trump's complaint about the high tariffs that other nations impose on American products, calling for U.S. trading partners to sharply reduce their import taxes to more closely match the lower levies typically imposed by Washington,' WaPo's David Lynch writes.
3. WHERE THE WHITE HOUSE IS SAVING AID: The White House is racing to assuage concerns from key House Republicans who are wary of plans to slash global AIDS funding ahead of a Thursday vote on a $9.4 billion spending cuts package, POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill reports. 'In recent days, White House officials have conveyed to GOP leaders that they will not only maintain life-saving treatments under PEPFAR but will also — in response to concerns from more than a dozen House Republicans — preserve some prevention programs as well.'
4. GUANTANAMO UPDATE: The Trump administration is 'planning to dramatically ramp up sending undocumented migrants to Guantanamo Bay starting this week, with at least 9,000 people being vetted for transfer,' POLITICO's Nahal Toosi and Myah Ward scoop. 'That would be an exponential increase from the roughly 500 migrants who have been held for short periods at the base since February and a major step toward realizing a plan President Donald Trump announced in January to use the facility to hold as many as 30,000 migrants. The transfers to Guantanamo could start as soon as Wednesday, the documents state.'
5. MUSK READ: DOJ and DHS in 2022 and 2023 'tracked foreign nationals coming and going to Elon Musk's properties,' WSJ's Dana Mattioli and colleagues scoop. The investigation 'focused on people visiting the tech billionaire, from countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, who might have been trying to influence him.' Though WSJ notes that several agencies, including the FBI, were briefed on the probe, it never progressed to any charges and its current status is unclear. But even last year, as he worked to help reelect Trump, Musk's frequent travel with foreigners concerned staffers for his super PAC over 'who was joining him at meetings and events.' Officials 'had to institute extensive vetting to keep foreigners out of their efforts.'
6. BOSS HOGG: DNC Vice Chair David Hogg is getting involved in yet another Democratic primary, defying party leadership amid a broader struggle over the DNC's direction under Chair Ken Martin, who recently told party leaders in a private conversation that he's unsure about his ability to lead the party because of infighting created by Hogg. 'Hogg's political group, Leaders We Deserve, is backing 37-year-old state Del. Irene Shin, who is part of a crowded Democratic field vying later this month to fill [late Rep. Gerry] Connolly's seat in Northern Virginia after his death last month,' WaPo's Patrick Svitek reports.
7. VAX POPULI: HHS is 'circulating a document on Capitol Hill to explain its decision to remove the Covid-19 vaccine recommendation for pregnant women — citing studies that largely found the shot is safe,' POLITICO's Sophie Gardner and Lauren Gardner report. 'The document, which HHS sent to lawmakers days before Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced his plan to fire the panel that advises the CDC on immunizations, says that studies have shown that women who got the vaccine during pregnancy had higher rates of various complications.' But the author of one study cited tells POLITICO that 'the results of our manuscript were misinterpreted.'
8. THE YOUTH MOVEMENT: Iowa Democrats are pushing hard for a younger generation to take up the mantle and make the party competitive in a red state once again. But the crop of candidates — both in Iowa and beyond — who came up online are proving a bit difficult to harvest. 'This weekend, as Zach Wahls, a 33-year-old state senator, planned to launch his Senate campaign, some Democratic operatives in Iowa circulated an old message board in which Mr. Wahls, at age 19, had opined about his pornography preferences and volunteered that his parents had given him a subscription to Playboy magazine when he was 16,' NYT's Reid Epstein writes. 'Other campaigns have confronted similar turbulence.'
9. FOR YOUR RADAR: North Korea 'appears to be building a new uranium-enrichment plant in its main nuclear complex, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog warned this week, the strongest sign yet that the country's leader, Kim Jong-un, plans to grow its nuclear weapons supply,' NYT's Choe Sang-Hun reports from Seoul.
TALK OF THE TOWN
Tulsi Gabbard, in a dramatic video on X, warned of a 'nuclear holocaust' and chastised 'warmongers' for bringing the world 'closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.'
Michael Stipe, Jason Isbell and Brandi Carlile are among the artists appearing on an album to benefit Democracy Forward.
SPOTTED: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Lina Khan running through the Capitol together on the way to votes this morning.
MEDIAWATCH — Mark Guiducci is taking over as top editor of Vanity Fair, per NYT's Katie Robertson. The 36-year-old Guiducci 'takes over a job that is very different from the one held by previous editors of Vanity Fair. He will be the first 'global editorial director' at Vanity Fair — gone is the editor in chief title — and will oversee Vanity Fair in the United States as well as editions across the world.'
TRANSITIONS — Cally Barry is now senior adviser and comms director for Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). She most recently was comms director for Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-Texas). … Marybeth Nassif is joining Jones Walker as a director in the government relations practice group. She previously was a professional staff member for the House Appropriations Committee.
Send Playbookers tips to playbook@politico.com or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton, deputy editor Garrett Ross and Playbook Podcast producer Callan Tansill-Suddath.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Congress exists': Bay Area lawmakers deride Trump's decision to bomb Iran as unlawful
Bay Area congressional Democrats condemned the U.S. bombing of nuclear sites in Iran Saturday, saying President Donald Trump overstepped his authority and thrust the country into another risky Middle East conflict. Gov. Gavin Newsom said California's State Threat Assessment Center is monitoring for potential impacts in the state. 'While there are no specific or credible counter threats we are aware of at this time, we urge everyone to stay vigilant and report suspicious activity,' he tweeted. 'Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,' House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi posted on X. 'I join my colleagues in demanding answers from the Administration on this operation which endangers American lives and risks further escalation and dangerous destabilization of the region.' Rep. Ro Khanna said on X called on congressional leaders to return to Washington to pass a resolution 'to prevent America from being dragged into another endless Middle East war.' After announcing the attack on social media Saturday afternoon, Trump said during a speech at the White House Saturday night that the bombings of the Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan sites had been 'a spectacular military success' that 'totally obliterated' the targets. Other Democratic politicians voiced concern with the escalation of the conflict with Iran, while Republicans backed up Trump's move. Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, called Trump's action 'an act of war,' that could lead to 'terrible consequences for our troops, our national security, the Middle East region, and what's left of our global credibility.' Huffman said there were smarter ways to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. 'This is a dark day for the Constitution and for peace,' Huffman said. Khanna and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Antioch, both pushed members of Congress to return to session to pass Khanna's War Powers Resolution, co-sponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican. The resolution aims to limit the president's power to commit the United States to armed conflict. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Castro Valley, said Congress 'should have been briefed, voted on and able to set parameters on this action.' 'Donald Trump is not a dictator. And Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. That's why in a democracy, Congress exists,' Swalwell wrote on social media. 'Trump's actions — without pursuing proven congressionally authorized diplomatic efforts — threaten to mire the United States in ANOTHER endless Middle East Conflict.' The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations California condemned Trump's 'illegal and reckless' bombing, calling it an 'act of war that prioritizes (Israeli) Prime Minister Netanyahu's agenda over the interests of the American people.' 'This escalation, driven by pressure from an out-of-control Israeli government, risks dragging the U.S. into yet another unjust war in the region,' the organization said in a statement. CAIR said that while Trump previously promised to not start wars, he is now 'fueling dangerous escalation based on lies.' Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-San Jose, was more reserved in his criticism of the action, calling to 'refrain from further military action, and urge all parties back to the negotiating table before there is additional escalation.' Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, also criticized the lack of congressional authorization, but affirmed that 'Israel, the United States, and the world are safer without Iran having nuclear capabilities.' Rep. Lateefah Simon, D-Oakland called Trump's bombing of Iran 'lawless, dangerous, and immoral. This decision was made without the consent of Congress and without regard for the human lives that will be lost. This kind of power, wielded without accountability, puts all of us, our American troops and American families alike, in danger.' Rep. Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, voiced his support for Trump's 'decisive action to eliminate the nuclear capabilities posed by the Iranian regime was a necessary one to prevent a real and catastrophic threat.
San Francisco Chronicle
44 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,' said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a 'perfunctory notification' without any details, according to a spokesperson. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in a statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' The quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill, which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes." Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional." Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, also posted on X that 'This is not Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. "Enough.'
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The winners and losers in Trump's NATO arms race
NATO members are rushing to show President Donald Trump they're shoveling money into defense — some with a dose of creative math — as Russia's battle with Ukraine grinds on and war threatens to consume the Middle East. The group's summit this week in The Hague, which Trump plans to attend, will attempt to set a deadline for members to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense. Trump has complained about European defense budgets since his first term, claiming the U.S. gets ripped off by countries that rely on Washington for a security blanket. The way allies approach this at the summit is critical. Leaders will need to walk a tightrope between staying on the president's good side — and continuing to benefit from America's role in NATO — and declaring more independence from Washington. As Trump increases pressure, members are touting new investments and shuffling around money — from a 'defense-adjacent' Sicilian bridge to a stopgap German fund. A POLITICO analysis reveals telling gaps between the big spenders in Eastern Europe and those further afield from Russia, who are still creeping toward a decade-old target. The 32 member states break down into three groups: the winners, the risers and the laggards. Most countries occupy a crowded middle ground, not quite racing toward the new 5 percent goal, but making solid progress in exceeding the current 2 percent mark. 'Most of NATO recognizes that it has to be better,' said a U.S. Defense Department official, who like others, was granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'We're looking at these meetings as a very public chance, with the president watching, for them to step up.' Here's how NATO members are faring in the race to spend. Poland has led the pack for the last several years, spending 4.7 percent of its GDP on defense as it splurges on everything from drones to fighter planes. The country, which borders Russia and has dealt with errant missiles killing citizens, is keenly aware of the threat from its eastern flank. That kind of wake-up call has spurred Warsaw to ask the European Commission to shift $6.9 billion of its funding in green projects to defense. The bigger spending has made Poland a favorite in Washington. The Poles are getting creative in their weapons purchases by mixing systems and suppliers from multiple countries to get equipment delivered faster. Poland was the first NATO member to spend billions on South Korean long-range artillery and other systems — a move that other countries frustrated with delayed shipments of U.S. weapons, such as Finland, are emulating. Countries will do 'whatever works' to get to 5 percent, said a diplomat from a NATO member country, including folding infrastructure upgrades into defense spending to push the overall number higher. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia — former Russian territories that tend to march in lockstep when it comes to defense spending — have outlined plans to hit 5 percent by next year or soon after. They're already among the alliance's top spenders. Baltic officials are embracing a 'porcupine' strategy, modeled off Taiwan's efforts to ward off a Chinese invasion. This involves using small, mobile and lethal weapons fired from shore at any Russian Baltic Sea fleet ships that might threaten them. Greece is a surprise spender on defense, bucking the trend of most Mediterranean countries by dishing out more than 3 percent of its GDP. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in April announced a 12-year, $28 billion defense strategy that will focus on uncrewed vehicles, munitions, drones, satellites and its Achilles' Shield air defense system. The U.S. spends more than any other member on defense, but it still only reaches 3.4 percent of GDP. The country faces its own political challenges in reaching the NATO goal, even with a potential 2035 deadline that allies may recommend at the summit. The United Kingdom and France, Europe's two nuclear states, have made steady increases in recent years but face issues behind the scenes. Britain's defense budget rose from 2.2 percent of GDP in 2023 to 2.3 percent in 2024, with a sharp increase in research and development spending. It also paid extra for major operations such as air defense in the Red Sea and aircraft carriers deployed to the Pacific. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised to take that figure to 2.6 percent by 2026 — thanks in part to folding in intelligence and slashing spending on foreign aid. But he's beset by severe budget issues and has not yet set out a path to his goal of hitting even 3 percent. Paris has steadily increased defense spending since President Emmanuel Macron came to power in 2017. But it only hit 2 percent last year. France is one of the European Union's most indebted countries, and public finances are dire. It's unclear how the government would find extra money to reach the 5 percent goal, especially as Macron has ruled out raising taxes. Germany and Sweden have both rewritten their debt rules as they reach 2 percent and aim higher. German governments saw the NATO target as non-binding for years, and only the advent of war in Europe — dubbed the Zeitenwende, or turning point, by former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz — prompted the country to change course. Berlin in 2024 reported 2.1 percent of GDP on defense spending, exceeding the alliance benchmark for the first time since 1990. But the increase doesn't boost combat strength and relies on some fancy accounting. A sizable chunk of the 2024 defense budget came from a special temporary spending fund. Sweden's defense spending surged following its 2024 accession to NATO from 1.5 percent to 2.2 percent of GDP last year. Stockholm is tweaking its debt rules to allow for up to about $30 million in defense loans by 2035. Then there's Turkey. While Ankara has missed the 2 percent mark in recent years, it has a well-developed arms industry and punches above its spending weight in weapons and the size of its military — the second-largest in NATO. Several strategically vital countries hang well below the 5 percent goal, particularly Canada, Spain and Italy. All three have made pledges to catch up. But politics, accounting tricks and historical habits are slowing progress. Canada spends just 1.37 percent of GDP on defense, with key equipment gaps across its forces. Prime Minister Mark Carney this month promised to hit 2 percent 'this fiscal year,' bringing forward a target initially set up for 2029. The lag has deep roots. Ottawa has long relied on U.S. defense guarantees while prioritizing social spending and climate goals. Carney is framing rearmament as a sovereignty issue in light of Trump's threats to annex Canada, but that would require a rapid ramp-up in procurement and industrial capacity. Spain remains NATO's lowest spender, aside from Iceland, which has no army. Madrid spent 1.3 percent of GDP on defense in 2024. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has rolled out an €11 billion military upgrade plan to reach 2 percent this year. It's the country's most ambitious defense posture in decades. But Sánchez is boxed in by his governing coalition. Left-wing allies remain opposed to higher military budgets, and previous attempts to raise spending triggered a backlash. He asked Rutte this month, in a letter obtained by POLITICO, for a carveout to the new spending target. 'It is the legitimate right of every government to decide whether or not they are willing to make those sacrifices,' he wrote, saying it would jeopardize the country's welfare system. Italy was only slightly higher at 1.5 percent last year. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said the government will hit the 2 percent target this year, but officials suggest that may happen more through clever accounting. Rome wants civilian infrastructure, such as a planned bridge to Sicily, to count as a defense-adjacent goal. Defense spending remains a politically fraught topic as the country faces high debt levels and strong pressure to protect pensions and welfare. This text is a collaboration of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network. Paul McLeary reported from Washington, Chris Lunday reported from Berlin and Esther Webber reported from London. Jacopo Barigazzi in Brussels, Mike Blanchfield in Ottawa, Jack Detsch in Washington, WELT's Philipp Fritz in Warsaw, Max Griera in Brussels, WELT's Thorsten Jugholt in Berlin and Laura Kayali in Paris contributed to this report.
