Latest news with #InaugurationDay
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
White House floats a new funding trick — and GOP lawmakers grimace
Russ Vought's relationship with Republican appropriators was already strained. Then he started talking about pursuing the ultimate end-run around their funding power heading into the fall. The White House budget director has been persistently touting the virtues of 'pocket rescissions,' a tactic he has floated as a way to codify the spending cuts Elon Musk made while atop his Department of Government Efficiency initiative, and which the federal government's top watchdog says is illegal. On Capitol Hill, leading GOP appropriators see Vought's comments as another shot against them in an escalating battle with the Trump administration over Congress' 'power of the purse.' And they warn that the budget director's adversarial posture hinders their relationship with the White House as they work to head off a government shutdown in just over three months. "Pocket rescissions are illegal, in my judgment," Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a brief interview this week, "and contradict the will of Congress and the constitutional authority of Congress to appropriate funds." To hear Vought tell it, a "pocket rescission" is a legitimate tool at the executive branch's disposal. In such a scenario, President Donald Trump would issue a formal request to claw back funding, similar to the $9.4 billion package he sent lawmakers this month to cancel congressionally approved funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid. But in this case, the memo would land on Capitol Hill less than 45 days before the new fiscal year is set to begin Oct. 1. By withholding the cash for that full timeframe — regardless of action by Congress — the White House would treat the funding as expired when the current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. The dizzying ploy is another means toward the same goal Trump has been chasing since Inauguration Day: to spend less money than Congress has explicitly mandated in law. But the Government Accountability Office says the maneuver is unlawful, and the GOP lawmakers in charge of divvying up federal funding are wary that Vought is now talking about it in the open. 'I understand we want to use all the arrows in our quiver, and he wants to use all his,' Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said of Vought in an interview. 'But every time you pull out an arrow, you have to be ready for the consequences, right?' Joyce continued: 'It's going to change the course of conversations and how each side works toward coming to resolution going forward.' Vought declined last week to elaborate on his intentions, when pressed in person on Capitol Hill about his plans to use the ploy in the coming months. His office also did not return a request for comment. However, the budget director laid out a detailed argument for the maneuver on television earlier in the month — then mentioned it again as he left a meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson and then during a later hearing with House appropriators. 'The very Impoundment Control Act itself allows for a procedure called pocket rescissions, later in the year, to be able to bank some of these savings, without the bill actually being passed,' Vought said on CNN. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used. But it is there. And we intend to use all of these tools.' Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the Interior Department and the EPA, recently warned that the gambit is 'a bad idea" that "undermines Congress' authority," after saying last month that he thinks "it's illegal" for a president to withhold funding lawmakers approved. But many top Republican appropriators — while scoffing at Vought's comments — aren't willing to engage in rhetorical arguments about the bounds of the president's spending power. 'Talking is one thing. We'll see if he actually does it,' Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the military, said about Vought's comments. 'He's got his ideas,' said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), chair of the appropriations panel responsible for funding the departments of Transportation and Housing. 'I'd have some concerns about it,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services — all targets of Trump's deepest funding cuts. Tension has been building for months between those Republican appropriators and Vought, who has a history of testing the limits of funding law: When he served in this same role during Trump's first administration, he froze aid to Ukraine in a move that helped set the stage for the president's first impeachment trial. Republican funding leaders are irked that the White House has yet to deliver a full budget request, which appropriators rely upon to write their dozen funding measures. Vought has already left open the door to withholding the new money if the administration doesn't agree with the spending priorities in the final bills. They also say the president's budget director and other Cabinet secretaries have withheld essential information about how they are using federal cash as the Trump administration fights off more than 100 legal challenges around the country. The suits are seeking to overturn the White House's freezing of billions of dollars Congress already approved for myriad programs and agencies. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) issued a rare rebuke of Vought this spring for taking down the public website showing how agencies are expected to disburse federal dollars. But the Oklahoma Republican generally avoids any public criticism of the Trump administration and is not sounding off now about Vought's embrace of pocket rescissions. Cole said this month that he would 'look at each individual' request the White House sends to claw back funding, now that the House has passed the $9.4 billion package to nix money for foreign aid and public broadcasting. That package of funding cuts now sits in the Senate, where some top Republicans are interested in tweaking the plan to protect funding for preventing AIDS around the world and supporting PBS programming in their home states. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) suggested Vought's public comments about using pocket rescissions could be intended to encourage reluctant senators to clear it. 'Maybe that's the way to let members know: Vote for the ones he sends up,' Johnson said, noting that he would be 'totally supportive' of Vought using the tactic this fall. Another Senate fiscal hawk, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.), said he believes the law 'does allow for pocket rescissions.' 'I think the president should have more power not to spend money,' Paul told reporters last week. 'So if we have a way to reduce spending, by all means, we should use it.' No court has ruled on the president's power to cancel funding by sending Congress a request and then running out the clock at the end of the fiscal year. But GAO has twice weighed in. In 2018, the watchdog found that the law 'does not permit the withholding of funds through their date of expiration." Vought, though, likes to cite an older GAO conclusion from 1975: It determined that Congress was unable to reject then-President Gerald Ford's requests to claw back funding 'in time to prevent the budget authority from lapsing.' Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business
- Business Insider
3 ways to avoid getting burned by exchange rates and fees when traveling overseas this summer
If you earn your paycheck in US dollars, it's a tough time to be traveling abroad. As foreign investors turn away from US assets amid President Trump's trade war and a growing national debt, the value of the US dollar relative to other currencies is down by around 10% since Inauguration Day to its lowest level since early 2022. But if you're not careful, your effective exchange rates can spiral higher. Chris Kawashima, the director of Charles Schwab's Financial Planning division, recently shared three ways to save money on your next trip when it comes to foreign exchange rates and transactions. First, be aware of foreign transaction fees associated with your credit or debit card, Kawashima said. Many credit card companies will charge up to a 3% fee. On top of that, the bank behind your credit card company may also charge a similar fee. Some common credit cards with no foreign transaction fees include the Chase Sapphire Preferred Card, Citi Strata Premier Card, and Capital One Venture Rewards Credit Card. Card readers will also sometimes offer you the option to pay in the local currency or in USD. In those cases, pay in the local currency, Kawashima said, because the exchange rates are usually poor and will leave you paying a higher price in the end. "Many travelers are enticed by the convenience and familiarity of receiving bills—at restaurants, for instance—in U.S. dollars," Kawashima said in the post earlier this month. "But this new trend, called dynamic currency conversion, can come with an unfavorable exchange rate, transaction fees, or both." A good way to avoid fees altogether is to pay in cash. But getting hold of foreign cash without paying a hefty price can also be challenging for two reasons: exchange fees and unfair exchange rates. To avoid steep fees, perhaps minimize how many times you're getting cash out. You may also want to get the cash before you leave at your bank or credit union, which usually offer some of the best exchange rates available, Kawashima said. "It's best to check ahead, however, to confirm that they have the foreign currency in hand as well as to check on the conversion rate," Kawashima said. "Once you arrive at your destination, you might be able to get a decent exchange rate at your hotel as well."
Politico
a day ago
- Business
- Politico
White House floats a new funding trick — and GOP lawmakers grimace
Russ Vought's relationship with Republican appropriators was already strained. Then he started talking about pursuing the ultimate end-run around their funding power heading into the fall. The White House budget director has been persistently touting the virtues of 'pocket rescissions,' a tactic he has floated as a way to codify the spending cuts Elon Musk made while atop his Department of Government Efficiency initiative, and which the federal government's top watchdog says is illegal. On Capitol Hill, leading GOP appropriators see Vought's comments as another shot against them in an escalating battle with the Trump administration over Congress' 'power of the purse.' And they warn that the budget director's adversarial posture hinders their relationship with the White House as they work to head off a government shutdown in just over three months. 'Pocket rescissions are illegal, in my judgment,' Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a brief interview this week, 'and contradict the will of Congress and the constitutional authority of Congress to appropriate funds.' To hear Vought tell it, a 'pocket rescission' is a legitimate tool at the executive branch's disposal. In such a scenario, President Donald Trump would issue a formal request to claw back funding, similar to the $9.4 billion package he sent lawmakers this month to cancel congressionally approved funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid. But in this case, the memo would land on Capitol Hill less than 45 days before the new fiscal year is set to begin Oct. 1. By withholding the cash for that full timeframe — regardless of action by Congress — the White House would treat the funding as expired when the current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. The dizzying ploy is another means toward the same goal Trump has been chasing since Inauguration Day: to spend less money than Congress has explicitly mandated in law. But the Government Accountability Office says the maneuver is unlawful, and the GOP lawmakers in charge of divvying up federal funding are wary that Vought is now talking about it in the open. 'I understand we want to use all the arrows in our quiver, and he wants to use all his,' Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said of Vought in an interview. 'But every time you pull out an arrow, you have to be ready for the consequences, right?' Joyce continued: 'It's going to change the course of conversations and how each side works toward coming to resolution going forward.' Vought declined last week to elaborate on his intentions, when pressed in person on Capitol Hill about his plans to use the ploy in the coming months. His office also did not return a request for comment. However, the budget director laid out a detailed argument for the maneuver on television earlier in the month — then mentioned it again as he left a meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson and then during a later hearing with House appropriators. 'The very Impoundment Control Act itself allows for a procedure called pocket rescissions, later in the year, to be able to bank some of these savings, without the bill actually being passed,' Vought said on CNN. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used. But it is there. And we intend to use all of these tools.' Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the Interior Department and the EPA, recently warned that the gambit is 'a bad idea' that 'undermines Congress' authority,' after saying last month that he thinks 'it's illegal' for a president to withhold funding lawmakers approved. But many top Republican appropriators — while scoffing at Vought's comments — aren't willing to engage in rhetorical arguments about the bounds of the president's spending power. 'Talking is one thing. We'll see if he actually does it,' Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the military, said about Vought's comments. 'He's got his ideas,' said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), chair of the appropriations panel responsible for funding the departments of Transportation and Housing. 'I'd have some concerns about it,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services — all targets of Trump's deepest funding cuts. Tension has been building for months between those Republican appropriators and Vought, who has a history of testing the limits of funding law: When he served in this same role during Trump's first administration, he froze aid to Ukraine in a move that helped set the stage for the president's first impeachment trial. Republican funding leaders are irked that the White House has yet to deliver a full budget request, which appropriators rely upon to write their dozen funding measures. Vought has already left open the door to withholding the new money if the administration doesn't agree with the spending priorities in the final bills. They also say the president's budget director and other Cabinet secretaries have withheld essential information about how they are using federal cash as the Trump administration fights off more than 100 legal challenges around the country. The suits are seeking to overturn the White House's freezing of billions of dollars Congress already approved for myriad programs and agencies. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) issued a rare rebuke of Vought this spring for taking down the public website showing how agencies are expected to disburse federal dollars. But the Oklahoma Republican generally avoids any public criticism of the Trump administration and is not sounding off now about Vought's embrace of pocket rescissions. Cole said this month that he would 'look at each individual' request the White House sends to claw back funding, now that the House has passed the $9.4 billion package to nix money for foreign aid and public broadcasting. That package of funding cuts now sits in the Senate, where some top Republicans are interested in tweaking the plan to protect funding for preventing AIDS around the world and supporting PBS programming in their home states. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) suggested Vought's public comments about using pocket rescissions could be intended to encourage reluctant senators to clear it. 'Maybe that's the way to let members know: Vote for the ones he sends up,' Johnson said, noting that he would be 'totally supportive' of Vought using the tactic this fall. Another Senate fiscal hawk, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.), said he believes the law 'does allow for pocket rescissions.' 'I think the president should have more power not to spend money,' Paul told reporters last week. 'So if we have a way to reduce spending, by all means, we should use it.' No court has ruled on the president's power to cancel funding by sending Congress a request and then running out the clock at the end of the fiscal year. But GAO has twice weighed in. In 2018, the watchdog found that the law 'does not permit the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' Vought, though, likes to cite an older GAO conclusion from 1975: It determined that Congress was unable to reject then-President Gerald Ford's requests to claw back funding 'in time to prevent the budget authority from lapsing.' Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
France 24
3 days ago
- Politics
- France 24
The age of war? Israel-Iran conflict further undemines global security
42:04 Issued on: From the show Donald Trump sold us a different kind of Pax Americana. The U-S-led global rules-based order was always about soft power backed by bulk military rules on Inauguration Day veered instead to the utilitarian: yes to the world's top superpower staking imperial claims to parts of the planet deemed vital to national interests. Yes to coveting Greenland's strategic minerals and Panama's essential waterway. No to forever wars in places like Ukraine where the US pays while Europe reaps the benefits of curbing Vladimir Putin's westward march. So why now the sudden pull of the Middle East? As the US president weighs whether to go all-in with Israel's pre-emptive war against Iran? one whose stated aims oscillate between nuclear deterrence and regime change. Why Iran and not Ukraine and what conclusions Europe draws from the evolution of warfare in 2025? Both Ukraine and Israel inflicting damage with spectacular operations that combine special ops in the field, drones and artificial intelligence. Sales reps are all smiles at the big Paris Air Show but how should cash-strapped states be buying for their militaries? Can an unmanned gizmo really inflict as much damage as a state-of-the-art fighter jet? If so, just how volatile a world we live in?
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump administration passport policy targeting transgender people
A federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked the State Department from enforcing an executive order that required Americans to select their gender assigned at birth on new passports. U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick ruled Tuesday that any individual who needs to renew their passport because it expires within one year, apply for a new passport or change their name or sex designation may choose the gender that they identify with. Applicants can also still select "X" on a passport application form. Kobick's ruling expanded an earlier decision in April that only applied to six of the original plaintiffs. The executive order, issued by Mr. Trump on Inauguration Day, directed the State Department to no longer issue U.S. passports with anything other than a male or female designation. It reversed a previous policy under the Biden administration that allowed for Americans to self-select their gender on their passport application, and included an "X" for those who do not identify as either male or female. If passports with the "X" marker expired and were renewed under the new policy, those people who had previously selected it would be forced to choose male or female. In February, a group of transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs backed by the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump administration over the policy, claiming that the executive order was discriminatory against them. In April, Kobick ruled that the Trump administration failed to provide a rationale for the new passport policy "related to an important governmental interest" and found that the policy discriminated against transgender Americans. "Viewed as a whole, the language of the Executive Order is candid in its rejection of the identity of an entire group—transgender Americans—who have always existed and have long been recognized in, among other fields, law and the medical profession," Kobick wrote in her April decision. The judge reaffirmed Tuesday that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case. "This decision acknowledges the immediate and profound negative impact that the Trump administration's passport policy has on the ability of people across the country to travel for work, school, and family," said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. "The Trump administration's passport policy attacks the foundations of the right to privacy and the freedom for all people to live their lives safely and with dignity. We will continue to fight to stop this unlawful policy once and for all." The Justice Department appealed Kobick's April ruling last week. A State Department spokesperson told CBS News, "As a general matter, we do not comment on pending or ongoing litigation." CBS News has reached out to the White House for comment. Teen questioned after family's quadruple murder Pentagon sends more U.S. forces to Middle East amid Israel-Iran conflict Charleston church marks 10 years since deadly shooting
