WASHINGTON — The massive tax and spending cuts package that President Trump wants on his desk by July 4 would loosen regulations on gun silencers and certain types of rifles and shotguns, advancing a longtime priority of the gun industry as Republican leaders in the House and Senate try to win enough votes to pass the bill.
The guns provision was first requested in the House by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican gun store owner who had initially opposed the larger tax package. The House bill would remove silencers — called “suppressors” by the gun industry — from a 1930s law that regulates firearms that are considered the most dangerous, eliminating a $200 tax while removing a layer of background checks.
The Senate kept the provision on silencers in its version of the bill and expanded upon it, adding short-barreled, or sawed-off, rifles and shotguns.
Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on 2nd Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport.
“Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn’t stand in the way of protecting American gun owners’ hearing,” said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel.
Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons.
“Parents don’t want silencers on their streets, police don’t want silencers on their streets,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.
The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants.
Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools.
Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades.
Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called “beautiful.”
“I’m glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the 2nd Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill,” said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year.
If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online.
Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. “All it’s ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing-safe levels,” Keane says.
Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores 2nd Amendment rights from “over 90 years of draconian taxes.” Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill “with the purest of motive.”
“Who asked for it? I asked,” said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added.
Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the “mass shooting generation” and said the bill would help “gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.”
Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter.
“There’s a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.
Schumer and other Democrats are trying to persuade the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren’t budget-related.
“Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we’ve got,” Schumer said earlier this month.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” now before the Senate takes the current preoccupation with making every governmental relationship transactional to an immoral extreme. It puts a $1,000 price tag on the right to seek asylum — the first time the United States would require someone to pay for this human right.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” U.S. law incorporates that right, stating that “any alien … irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” Neither makes this right contingent on being able to pay.
Bear in mind that asylum seekers in the United States do not have the right to court-appointed attorneys. That means the system already profoundly disadvantages indigent asylum seekers — they can’t afford a lawyer, often don’t speak English and have no road map for navigating arcane immigration law.
The new law would make asylum even more inaccessible for a poor person, in effect, creating two classes of those seeking refuge here. Those wealthy enough to pay $1,000 up front would have their protection claims heard; those unable to pay would be shunted back to face persecution and the problems that drove them from their home countries to begin with.
If this part of the bill isn’t modified before its final passage, Congress will have piled on to the obstacles the Trump administration has already put in place to block the right to seek asylum. On Inauguration Day, President Trump proclaimed an invasion of the United States by “millions of aliens” and “suspend[ed] the physical entry of any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border.” Until the president decides the “invasion” is over, the order explicitly denies the right of any person to seek asylum if it would permit their continued presence in the United States.
Since Jan. 20, asylum seekers trying to enter the United States at the southwestern border have been turned away and, in some cases, loaded onto military planes and flown to third countries — Panama, for example — without any opportunity to make asylum claims.
“I asked for asylum repeatedly. I really tried,” Artemis Ghasemzadeh, a 27-year-old Christian convert from Iran, told Human Rights Watch after being sent to Panama. “Nobody listened to me …. Then an immigration officer told me President Trump had ended asylum, so they were going to deport us.”
On top of the basic fee for asylum seekers, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would also require an asylum seeker to pay a fee of “not less than $550” every six months to be permitted to work in the U.S. while their claim is pending. The bill would also impose an additional $100 fee for every year an asylum application remains pending in the heavily backlogged system, punishing the person fleeing persecution for the government’s failure to provide sufficient immigration judges.
Children are not spared. For the privilege of sponsoring an unaccompanied migrant child, the bill would require the sponsor, often a relative who steps forward to care for the child, to pay a $3,500 fee. Congressional priorities for spending on unaccompanied children who arrive at our borders show a distinct lack of compassion: The bill directs that a $20-million appropriation for U.S. Customs and Border Protection “shall only be used to conduct an examination of such unaccompanied alien child for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings.”
Add to these barriers the complete shutdown of the U.S. refugee resettlement program, except for white South Africans; the termination of “humanitarian parole” for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans; the end of temporary protected status programs that have provided protection to people coming from countries of widespread conflict, and the travel ban that bars entry from some of the world’s top refugee-producing countries, including Afghanistan, Myanmar, Iran and Sudan.
In the meantime, Trump hypes the idea of selling $5-million “gold cards” for super rich foreigners who want to buy U.S. permanent residence. When asked who might be interested, Trump replied, “I know some Russian oligarchs that are very nice people.”
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes $45 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention capacity (by my calculations, that would more than triple capacity). It also specifies $14.4 billion for ICE transportation and removal operations, $46.5 billion for the border wall and $858 million to pay bonuses to ICE officials.
With all the money Congress is prepared to spend, it’s a wonder the bill didn’t add a few dollars for sanding down the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty and re-chiseling it to say, “Give me your rich and well-rested … yearning to breathe free.”
Bill Frelick is refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch and the author of the report “‘Nobody Cared, Nobody Listened’: The US Expulsion of Third-Country Nationals to Panama.”
The British parliament has narrowly voted in favour of a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people, marking a landmark moment of social reform in the country’s history.
The legislation passed by a vote of 314-291 in the House of Commons on Friday, clearing its biggest parliamentary hurdle, and will now undergo months of scrutiny in the House of Lords, Britain’s upper chamber.
The process could result in further amendments when it goes to the Lords, but the upper house is usually reluctant to block legislation that has been passed by elected members of parliament in the Commons.
Friday’s vote came after many hours of emotional debate, including references to personal stories, in the chamber. It followed a vote in November that approved the legislation in principle.
Prior to that, the House of Commons voted on the issue in 2015, when it rejected legalising assisted dying.
What is in the assisted dying bill?
The “Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life)” Bill gives mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales, who have six months or less left to live, the right to choose to end their lives with medical assistance.
Patients will have to be capable of taking fatal drugs by themselves after receiving a green light from doctors and a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist.
Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, where a healthcare practitioner or other person administers a lethal injection at a patient’s request.
Under current legislation, someone who helps a terminally ill person end their life can face a police investigation, prosecution and a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
Changes to the original draft of the new bill were made to include the appointment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board.
Logistics still need to be thrashed out, including whether the practice or any services supporting it would be integrated into the National Health Service (NHS) or would operate as a separate unit made available through third parties.
The bill will not apply in Northern Ireland or Scotland, which is holding its own vote on the issue.
What are the arguments for assisted dying?
Supporters of the bill say it will ensure dignity and compassion for people with a terminal diagnosis, who must be given a choice over whether or not to relieve their suffering.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill, told The Guardian newspaper that terminally ill people should be given rights over their bodies similar to those that allow a woman to choose an abortion.
“As much as I will fight for the rights of disabled people to be treated better by society, I will also fight for the rights of dying people,” she said.
Some advocates for the bill also argue that current legislation discriminates against the poor, who face possible prosecution for helping their loved ones die, while the wealthy can travel abroad to legally access the services.
Conservative MP Peter Bedford spoke against this perceived inequality. “At least one Brit every week is taking the stressful and often lonely journey to Switzerland for an assisted death, at the cost of £12,000 ($16,100),” he said. “This bill isn’t about shortening life, it is about shortening death.”
Labour MP Maureen Burke spoke about her brother David, who suffered from pancreatic cancer. “He could never have known that I would ever have the opportunity to stand in this place and ask colleagues to make sure that others don’t go through what he went through,” she said. “I’ve done right by my brother by speaking here today.”
Opinion polls show that a majority of United Kingdom citizens back assisted dying. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the UK-based Dignity in Dying campaign, said the vote sent “a clear message” and that “parliament stands with the public and change is coming”.
While there is no timetable for the implementation of the bill, under the terms of the legislation, it must begin within four years of the law being passed.
What do opponents say?
Opponents worry that vulnerable people could be coerced into ending their lives or feel pressured to do so for fear of becoming a burden to their families and society.
Protesters who rallied outside parliament as the vote was taking place on Friday held up banners urging politicians not to make the state-run health service, the NHS, the “National Suicide Service”.
Several MPs withdrew their support for the bill after the initial vote last year, saying safeguards had been weakened. One of the most important changes to the bill from last November was the dropping of the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. The latest vote passed by a majority of 23, a narrowing of support from the 55 majority (330 votes to 275) in November.
Care Not Killing, a group that opposes the law change, called the bill “deeply flawed and dangerous” and argued that politicians had not been given enough time to consider its implications.
“Members of Parliament had under 10 hours to consider over 130 amendments to the bill, or less than five minutes per change. Does anyone think this is enough time to consider changes to a draft law that quite literally is a matter of life and death?” said the group’s CEO, Gordon Macdonald.
Opponents also raised concerns about the impact of assisted dying on the finances of the state-run NHS, whether it could allow it to sidetrack requests to fund improvements to palliative care and how it might change the relationship between doctors and their patients.
Outright opponents of the legislation include Tanni Grey-Thompson, a disabled MP and Paralympic medallist. In an interview with Sky News, she said nobody needs to die a “terrible death” if they have access to specialist palliative care.
“I’m really worried that disabled people, because of the cost of health and social care, because that’s being removed, that choice is then taken away, so the only choice they have is to end their lives,” she said.
Where else is assisted dying legal?
Assisted dying laws have been introduced in several countries. About 300 million people around the world have legal access to this option, according to Dignity in Dying.
In March, the Isle of Man became the first place in the British Isles to pass an assisted dying bill, allowing terminally ill adults with a prognosis of 12 months or less to choose to end their lives.
Switzerland legalised assisted dying in 1942, making it the first country in the world to permit the practice on the condition that the motive is not selfish.
In Europe, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and Austria have some form of legalised assisted dying.
In the United States, the practice is known as “physician-assisted dying” and is legal in 10 states, while in Australia, it has been legal in every state since 2022.
In Latin America, Colombia legalised euthanasia for terminally ill adult patients in 2014, while Ecuador opted to decriminalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2024.
Canada has one of the most liberal systems of assisted dying in the world. It introduced MAID, or Medical Assistance in Dying, in 2016 for terminally ill adults. In 2021, the requirement of suffering from a terminal illness was removed and it is now debating opening the scheme to people who suffer from a mental illness as well.
Which other countries are considering legalising it?
A bill on assisted dying is being considered in Scotland. It passed an initial vote in May, but it will now need two more rounds of parliamentary scrutiny before it can become law.
French President Emmanuel Macron has backed a bill allowing some people in the last stages of a terminal illness to access assisted dying. That was approved by the National Assembly in May and will now go to the Senate before a second reading in the lower house.
According to Death with Dignity, 17 US states are considering assisted dying bills this year.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island’s Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons.
The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Daniel McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 other states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country’s mass shootings.
Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. But despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country’s smallest state have long argued over the necessity and legality of such proposals.
The bill applies only to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned.
Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities including Los Angeles and New York. Hawaii bans assault pistols.
Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states.
“I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more,” she said. “And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something.”
Critics of Rhode Island’s proposed law argued Friday during floor debates that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles.
“This bill doesn’t go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,” said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino.
Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, the House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the U.S. Supreme Court would deem it unconstitutional.
“We are throwing away money on this,” he said.
It wasn’t just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla. — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the “weakest assault weapons ban in the country.”
“I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,” Hogg said in a statement.
Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected assertions that the proposed law is weak.
“The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now — no ban on assault weapons,” Ryan said. “This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.”
Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the 2nd Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the bestselling rifles in the country.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case “in the next term or two.”
Kruesi writes for the Associated Press. AP writers David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Republicans have suffered a sizable setback on one key aspect of President Trump’s big bill after their plans to gut the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and other provisions from the Senate Banking Committee ran into procedural violations with the Senate parliamentarian.
Republicans in the Senate proposed zeroing out funding for the CFPB, the landmark agency set up in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, to save $6.4 billion. The bureau had been designed as a way to better protect Americans from financial fraud, but has been opposed by many GOP lawmakers since its inception. The Trump administration has targeted the CFPB as an example of government overregulation and overreach.
The findings by the Senate parliamentarian’s office, which is working overtime scrubbing Trump’s overall bill to ensure it aligns with the chamber’s strict “Byrd Rule” processes, signal a tough road ahead. The most daunting questions are still to come, as GOP leadership rushes to muscle Trump’s signature package to the floor for votes by his Fourth of July deadline.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Banking Committee that drafted the provisions in question, said in a statement, “My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee’s provisions.”
For Democrats, who have been fighting Trump’s 1,000-page package at every step, the parliamentarian’s advisory amounted to a significant win.
“Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, who engineered the creation of the CFPB before she was elected to Congress.
Warren said that GOP proposals “are a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk — all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.”
The parliamentarian’s rulings, while advisory, are rarely, if ever ignored.
With the majority in Congress, Republicans have been drafting a sweeping package that extends some $4.5-trillion tax cuts Trump approved during his first term, in 2017, that otherwise expire at the end of the year. It adds $350 billion to national security, including billions for Trump’s mass deportation agenda. And it slashes some $1 trillion from Medicaid, food stamps and other government programs.
All told, the package is estimated to add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the decade, and leave 10.9 million more people without healthcare coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s review of the House-passed package, which is now undergoing revisions in the Senate.
The parliamentarian’s office is responsible for determining if the package adheres to the Byrd Rule, named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who was considered one of the masters of Senate procedure. The rule essentially bars policy matters from being addressed in the budget reconciliation process.
Senate GOP leaders are using the budget reconciliation process, which is increasingly how big bills move through Congress, because it allows passage on a simple majority vote, rather than face a filibuster with the higher 60-vote threshold.
But if any of the bill’s provisions violate the Byrd Rule, that means they can be challenged at the tougher 60-vote threshold, which is a tall order in the 53-47 Senate. Leaders are often forced to strip those proposals from the package, even though doing so risks losing support from lawmakers who championed those provisions.
One of the biggest questions ahead for the parliamentarian will be over the Senate GOP’s proposal to use “current policy” as opposed to “current law” to determine the baseline budget and whether the overall package adds significantly to deficits.
Already the Senate parliamentarian’s office has waded through several titles of Trump’s big bill, including those from the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Energy & Public Works Committee.
The Banking panel offered a modest bill, just eight pages, and much of it was deemed out of compliance.
The parliamentarian found that in addition to gutting the CFPB, other provisions aimed at rolling back entities put in place after the 2008 financial crisis would violate the Byrd Rule. Those include a GOP provision to limit the Financial Research Fund, which was set up to conduct analysis, saving nearly $300 million; and another to shift the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which conducts oversight of accounting firms, to the Securities and Exchange Commission and terminate positions, saving $773 million.
The GOP plan to change the pay schedule for employees at the Federal Reserve, saving $1.4 billion, was also determined to be in violation of the Byrd Rule.
The parliamentarian’s office also raised Byrd Rule violations over GOP proposals to repeal certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act, including on emission standards for some model year 2027 light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.
Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
A family of five were on a trip to Disneyland and forked out almost £700 on breakfast one day, as the dad said he almost ‘spat his coffee’ out when he got the bill
A family of five forked out almost £700 on their breakfast at Disneyland (Image: Getty Images)
A dad has been left outraged after footing an £695 breakfast bill at Disneyland.
In a bid to make their trip extra special, the family of five booked the ‘Princess Breakfast’ at Disneyland California.
The father made the classic error of not checking the menu before the meal got booked, and was left completely taken aback by the amount he had to pay, including a tip of over £100.
Taking to X, formerly Twitter, to air his frustrations, the dad shared a photo of his receipt from the pricey breakfast, with a tip of $150 (£111) for a total of $937.65 (£695). He added the caption: “‘Princess Breakfast’ at Disneyland with my kids. Almost spit out my coffee.”
He added in the comment section: “I think if someone went to Disneyland and insisted on doing All The Things they could easily spend $3,000 per day. If I find that goddamn mouse I am going to mug him.”
The father, who goes by John Rock & Roll Tolkien on X, shared a photo of their breakfast receipt (Image: X/@jrockandrollt)
The post racked up a whopping 16.9M viewers as people were left just as stunned at the extortionate price. One penned: “This is why my daughter continues to believe Disney is closed for COVID.”
A second said: “For that much money you can get an after hours private tour of the Vatican.” A third candily asked: “How many princesses did you eat?! and another penned: “I can see why you didn’t spit out your coffee … it probably cost $45.”
Others applauded him with: “You’re a great dad for doing this…better than I’ll ever be.” Another asked: “I’m going to assume there was no booze included in this?”, and the dad replied: “One Bloody Mary.”
On the Disneyland website, it describes the ‘Princess Breakfast’ as an “unforgettable 3-course breakfast” with “enchanting encounters with some favourite Disney Princesses.” It also states that it starts at $142 (£105).
However, it wasn’t all bad, as further down in the comments section, the dad shared a photo of the breakfast, boasting steak, prawns, and asparagus. He said: “Tbh the breakfast was good. Still – nine hundred f**king American dollars?”
The Princess Breakfast is described as an “unforgettable 3-course breakfast” with “enchanting encounters with some favourite Disney Princesses”(Image: Disneyland)
He also mentioned: “With all the credit card points I’m getting at Disney I would be losing money by NOT going to the Princess Breakfast.”
Others noted that the cost shouldn’t have been a surprise. One user wrote: “Bro they tell you the price when you book, if you’re surprised that’s on you.” To which the father of three replied: “I didn’t book it or look at the menu, I’m a being of pure entropy.”
Another noted: “They are pretty clear at the Grand California about the cost of that per guest and it takes months to get a reservation. How was the experience over all? Did they rush you at all and how was Princess interaction?”
To which he replied: “It was fun, the food was probably 7/10, service was attentive and enthusiastic, princesses were all trained pro actresses and spent a lot of time with the kids. I enjoyed it.”
If passed, the bill will establish for the first time a regulatory regime for stablecoins, a fast rising financial product.
The United States Senate has passed a bill to create a regulatory framework for US-dollar-pegged cryptocurrency tokens known as stablecoins, in a watershed moment for the digital asset industry.
The bill, dubbed the GENIUS Act, received bipartisan support on Tuesday, with several Democrats joining most Republicans to back the proposed federal rules. It passed 68-30. The House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans, needs to pass its version of the bill before it heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for approval.
Stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a constant value, usually a 1:1 dollar peg, are commonly used by crypto traders to move funds between tokens. Their use has grown rapidly in recent years, and proponents say that they could be used to send payments instantly.
If signed into law, the stablecoin bill would require tokens to be backed by liquid assets – such as US dollars and short-term Treasury bills – and for issuers to publicly disclose the composition of their reserves on a monthly basis.
“It is a major milestone,” said Andrew Olmem, a managing partner at law firm Mayer Brown and the former deputy director of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term.
“It establishes, for the first time, a regulatory regime for stablecoins, a rapidly developing financial product and industry.”
The crypto industry has long pushed for lawmakers to pass legislation creating rules for digital assets, arguing that a clear framework could enable stablecoins to become more widely used. The sector spent more than $119m backing pro-crypto congressional candidates in last year’s elections and had tried to paint the issue as bipartisan.
The House passed a stablecoin bill last year but it died after the Senate, in which Democrats held the majority at the time, did not take it up.
Conflict of interest
Trump has sought to broadly overhaul US cryptocurrency policies after courting cash from the industry during his presidential campaign.
Bo Hines, who leads Trump’s Council of Advisers on Digital Assets, has said the White House wants a stablecoin bill passed before August.
Tensions on Capitol Hill over Trump’s various crypto ventures at one point threatened to derail the digital asset sector’s hope of legislation this year as Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump and his family members promoting their personal crypto projects.
“In advancing these bills, lawmakers forfeited their opportunity to confront Trump’s crypto grift – the largest, most flagrant corruption in presidential history,” said Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate for Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group.
Trump’s crypto ventures include a meme coin called $TRUMP, launched in January, and a crypto company he partly owns, called World Liberty Financial.
The White House has said there are no conflicts of interest present for Trump and that his assets are in a trust managed by his children.
Other Democrats have expressed concern that the bill would not prevent Big Tech companies from issuing their own private stablecoins, and argued that legislation needed stronger anti-money laundering protections and prohibitions on foreign stablecoin issuers.
“A bill that turbocharges the stablecoin market, while facilitating the president’s corruption and undermining national security, financial stability and consumer protection is worse than no bill at all,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, in remarks on the Senate floor in May.
The bill could face further changes in the House.
In a statement, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors called for “critical changes” to mitigate financial stability risks.
“CSBS remains concerned with the dramatic and unsupported expansion of the authority of uninsured banks to conduct money transmission or custody activities nationwide without the approval or oversight of host state supervisors,” said president and CEO Brandon Milhorn in a statement.
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Monday proposed deeper Medicaid cuts, including new work requirements for parents of teens, as a way to offset the costs of making President Trump’s tax breaks more permanent in draft legislation unveiled for his “Big Beautiful Bill.”
The proposals from Republicans keep in place the current $10,000 deduction of state and local taxes, called SALT, drawing quick blowback from GOP lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states, who fought for a $40,000 cap in the House-passed bill. Senators insisted negotiations continue.
The Senate draft also enhances Trump’s proposed new tax break for seniors, with a bigger $6,000 deduction for low- to moderate-income senior households earning no more than $75,000 a year for singles, $150,000 for couples.
All told, the text unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee’s Republicans provides the most comprehensive look yet at changes the GOP senators want to make to the 1,000-page package approved by House Republicans last month. GOP leaders are pushing to fast-track the bill for a vote by Trump’s Fourth of July deadline.
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), the chairman, said the proposal would prevent a tax hike and achieve “significant savings” by slashing green energy funds “and targeting waste, fraud and abuse.”
It comes as Americans broadly support levels of funding for popular safety net programs, according to the poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Many Americans see Medicaid and food assistance programs as underfunded.
What’s in the “Big Beautiful Bill” so far
Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” is the centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda, a hodgepodge of GOP priorities that Republicans are trying to swiftly pass over unified opposition from Democrats — a tall order for the slow-moving Senate.
Fundamental to the package is the extension of some $4.5 trillion in tax breaks approved during his first term, in 2017, that are expiring this year if Congress fails to act. There are also new ones, including no taxes on tips, as well as more than $1 trillion in program cuts.
After the House passed its version, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the decade, and leave 10.9 million more people without health insurance, due largely to the proposed new work requirements and other changes.
The biggest tax breaks, some $12,000 a year, would go to the wealthiest households, CBO said, while the poorest would see a tax hike of roughly $1,600. Middle-income households would see tax breaks of $500 to $1,000 a year, CBO said.
Both the House and Senate packages are eyeing a massive $350-billion buildup of Homeland Security and Pentagon funds, including some $175 billion for Trump’s mass deportation efforts, such as the hiring of 10,000 more officers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
This comes as protests over deporting migrants have erupted nationwide — including the stunning handcuffing of Sen. Alex Padilla last week in Los Angeles — and as deficit hawks such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul are questioning the vast spending on Homeland Security.
Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer warned that the Senate GOP’s draft “cuts to Medicaid are deeper and more devastating than even the Republican House’s disaster of a bill.”
Trade-offs in bill risk GOP support
As the package now moves to the Senate, the changes to Medicaid, SALT and green energy programs are part of a series of trade-offs GOP leaders are making as they try to push the package to passage with their slim majorities, with almost no votes to spare.
But criticism of the Senate’s version came quickly after House Speaker Mike Johnson warned senators of making substantial changes.
“We have been crystal clear that the SALT deal we negotiated in good faith with the Speaker and the White House must remain in the final bill,” the co-chairs of the House SALT caucus, Reps. Young Kim (R-Calif.) and Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), said in a joint statement Monday.
Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York posted on X that the $10,000 cap in the Senate bill was not only insulting, but a “slap in the face to the Republican districts that delivered our majority and trifecta” with the White House.
Medicaid and green energy cuts
Some of the largest cost savings in the package come from the GOP plan to impose new work requirements on able-bodied single adults, ages 18 to 64 and without dependents, who receive Medicaid, the health care program used by 80 million Americans.
While the House first proposed the new Medicaid work requirement, it exempted parents with dependents. The Senate’s version broadens the requirement to include parents of children older than 14, as part of their effort to combat waste in the program and push personal responsibility.
Already, the Republicans had proposed expanding work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to include older Americans up to age 64 and parents of school-age children older than 10. The House had imposed the requirement on parents of children older than 7.
People would need to work 80 hours a month or be engaged in a community service program to qualify.
One Republican, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, has joined a few others pushing to save Medicaid from steep cuts — including to the so-called provider tax that almost all states levy on hospitals as a way to help fund their programs.
The Senate plan proposes phasing down that provider tax, which is now up to 6%. Starting in 2027, the Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities.
Hawley slammed the Senate bill’s changes on the provider tax. “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 Senate also keeps in place the House’s proposed new $35-per-service co-pay imposed on some Medicaid patients who earn more than the poverty line, which is about $32,000 a year for a family of four, with exceptions for some primary, prenatal, pediatric and emergency room care.
And Senate Republicans are seeking a slower phaseout of some Biden-era green energy tax breaks to allow continued develop of wind, solar and other projects that the most conservative Republicans in Congress want to end more quickly. Tax breaks for electric vehicles would be immediately eliminated.
Conservative Republicans say the cuts overall don’t go far enough, and they oppose the bill’s provision to raise the national debt limit by $5 trillion to allow more borrowing to pay the bills.
“We’ve got a ways to go on this one,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.
SACRAMENTO — In response to immigration raids by masked federal officers in Los Angeles and across the nation, two California lawmakers on Monday proposed a new state law to ban members of law enforcement from concealing their faces while on the job.
The bill would make it a misdemeanor for local, state and federal law enforcement officers to cover their faces with some exceptions, and also encourage them to wear a form of identification on their uniform.
“We’re really at risk of having, effectively, secret police in this country,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), co-author of the bill.
During a news conference in San Francisco announcing the legislation, Wiener criticized the Trump administration for targeting illegal immigrants without criminal records and alleged that current tactics allow ICE agents to make themselves appear to be local police in some cases. Under the proposal, law enforcement officials would be exempted from the mask ban if they serve on a SWAT team or if a mask is necessary for medical or health reasons, including to prevent smoke inhalation.
Recent immigration enforcement sweeps have left communities throughout California and the country frightened and unsure if federal officials are legitimate because of their shrouded faces and lack of identification, said Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley), co-author and chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee. He said the bill would provide transparency and discourage impersonators.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection agencies, called the proposal “despicable,” saying it posed a threat to law enforcement officers by identifying them and subjecting them to retaliation.
“We will prosecute those who dox ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law. The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to arrest violent criminal illegal aliens to protect and defend the lives of American citizens,” the department said in a post on the social media site X. “Make no mistake, this type of rhetoric is contributing to the surge in assaults of ICE officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of ICE.”
Wiener, however, said members of law enforcement are public servants and people need to see their faces so they can be held accountable for their actions.
He likened ICE officials to Stormtroopers, fictional helmeted soldiers from the movie “Star Wars,” and said masking the faces and concealing the names of law enforcement officials shields them from public scrutiny and from the communities they are meant to serve.
“We don’t want to move towards that kind of model where law enforcement becomes almost like an occupying army, disconnected from the community, and that’s what it is when you start hiding their face, hiding the identity,” he said.
California law already bans wearing a mask or other disguise, including a fake mustache, wig or beard to hide your identity and evade law enforcement while committing a crime, but there are no current laws about what police can or cannot wear. It was unclear whether the proposal would affect undercover or plainclothes police officers, or if a state law could apply to federal police forces.
The proposal is being offered as an amendment to Senate Bill 627, a housing measure that would essentially be eviscerated.
The bill also includes an intent clause, which is not legally binding, that says the legislature would work to require all law enforcement within the state to display their name on their uniforms.
“Finding a balance between public transparency and trust, along with officer safety, is critical when we’re talking about creating state laws that change the rules for officers that are being placed into conflict situations,” Jason Salazar, president of the California Police Chief Assn., said in a statement. “We have been in touch with Senator Wiener, who reached out ahead of the introduction of this bill, and we will engage in discussions with him and his office to share our concerns so that we ensure the safety of law enforcement first responders is a top priority.”
Wiener said the new measure would make it clearer who is a police officer and who is not, which would be essential in the wake of the politically motivated killing of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, and the attempted killing of another politician and his wife. The suspect, Vance Boelter, is accused of knocking on the doors of the lawmakers in the middle of the night and announcing himself as a police officer to get them to open up, authorities said.
U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), wrote in an X post that the bill would endanger ICE agents.
“Do not forget — targeted attacks on ICE agents are up 413%. This is yet another shameless attempt to put them in harm’s way,” she said.
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition.
Strickland, who’s unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people.
“What sense does that make?” she asked. “What about the people who can’t work but can’t afford a doctor?”
The measure is part of the version of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4.
The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation’s social safety net.
For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn’t for those who can work but aren’t. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul.
Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them.
Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates.
Benefits can be difficult to navigate even without a work requirement
Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn’t able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said.
“It’s already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,” said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. “If they make it harder to get on, they’re not going to be helping.”
Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage.
The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify.
A disability exception would likely apply to Furman’s son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere.
Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help.
It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona’s Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don’t have the means to support his son fully.
“Should I expect the government to take care of him?” he asked. “I don’t know, but I do expect them to have humanity.”
There’s broad reliance on Medicaid for health coverage
About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage.
A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats.
The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care.
Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment.
Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility.
“Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,” she said.
One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she’s seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage.
She said she doesn’t mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. “It’s kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn’t need it,” she said.
Some people don’t if they might lose coverage with a work requirement
Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with “serious or complex” medical conditions could be granted exceptions.
She now works about 15 hours a week in “gig” jobs but isn’t sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer.
Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon’s office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability.
“I can’t even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,” she said.
Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago.
The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it’s hard to land one.
Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days.
“There’s no way I could have afforded that,” he said. “I would have lost my foot and probably died.”
Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.
Washington, DC – A prominent Democratic senator has introduced a bill to require United States President Donald Trump to first seek authorisation from Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran.
The measure, put forward by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine on Monday, came amid growing calls by pro-Israel groups for the US to join the Israeli bombing campaign against Iran as the attacks between the two countries intensify.
“I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,” Kaine said in a statement.
“The American people have no interest in sending service-members to fight another forever war in the Middle East. This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation’s men and women in uniform into harm’s way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress.”
The bill invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed during the Vietnam War to constrain unilateral presidential powers to engage in military hostilities.
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but successive US presidents have used their positions as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to mobilise troops, initiate attacks and start conflicts without clear congressional authorisation.
Kaine’s proposal adds to the pressure Trump is facing from antiwar advocates in both major parties, advocates said.
Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, said the bill sends a message to Trump against going to war with Iran and to the Israelis that “they’re not going to just get blank-cheque US support”.
It could also gauge the level of opposition to war with Iran in Congress, especially among Republicans. A growing contingency of right-wing lawmakers has been warning Trump against being dragged into a conflict that they said does not serve US interests.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s vice presidential running mate in the 2016 presidential race, which Donald Trump won [File: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters]
‘De-escalatory signal’
While Trump’s Republican Party controls both houses of the US Congress, the resolution may pass if conservative lawmakers who oppose foreign military interventions join the Democrats in backing it.
To become law, the bill needs to pass in the Senate and House of Representatives and be signed by Trump, who would likely block it. But Congress can override a presidential veto with two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate.
During his first term, Trump successfully vetoed two war powers resolutions, including a 2020 bill that aimed to curb his authority to strike Iran, which was also led by Kaine.
El-Tayyab said the 2020 push helped warn Trump against further strikes against Iran after the killing of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani despite the presidential veto, adding that the current measure may have a similar effect.
“Even if it passes and Trump vetoes it, it still sends a de-escalatory signal, and it reminds the administration that only Congress can declare war,” El-Tayyab told Al Jazeera.
Trump has not ruled out US strikes against Iran. “We’re not involved in it. It’s possible we could get involved,” he told ABC News on Sunday.
At the same time, the US president has called for ending the war.
Israel launched a bombardment campaign against Iran on Friday, targeting military and nuclear sites as well as residential buildings and civilian infrastructure, killing dozens of people, including top military officials and nuclear scientists.
The assault came just days before US and Iranian negotiators were to meet for a sixth round of nuclear talks in Oman.
Iran has responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles, many of which have penetrated Israel’s air defences, causing widespread damage across the country.
Hawks urge Trump to ‘go all-in’
With Israel under fire and seemingly unable on its own to take out Iran’s nuclear programme – including facilities buried deep underground and inside mountains – the US ally’s supporters are calling on Trump to come to its aid.
“The US has the bombers to carry deep-penetrating bombs that Israeli jets can’t. … This will be a missed opportunity if some of Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity survives when US participation could have made a difference,” The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote on Saturday.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham also said the US should “go all-in to help Israel finish the job”.
However, many US politicians have cautioned against American involvement in the war. Trump ran last year as a “peace” candidate, slamming his Democratic opponents as “warmongers”.
Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said in a social media post on Sunday that Americans are “sick and tired of foreign wars”.
“We have spent TRILLIONS in the Middle East and we have dealt with the aftermath of death, blown apart bodies, never ending suicides, and disabling PTSD,” she wrote in a post on X.
“All because they told us propaganda as to why we must sacrifice our own to defend some other country’s borders and some other country’s borders.”
Some US lawmakers have also stressed that war with Iran without the approval of Congress would be illegal.
“The president cannot circumvent congressional war powers and unilaterally send US troops to war with Iran,” Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said last week.
“The American people do not want another endless war in the Middle East that will cost lives and tear their families apart.”
‘Devastating regional war’
Antiwar advocates have long called on Congress to assert its powers over conflict. On Monday, several groups expressed support for Kaine’s proposed legislation.
“This is a critical moment for Congress to step in and exercise its constitutional authority to prevent the US from being dragged into another war,” Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, told Al Jazeera.
“Democrats and Republicans should unite in rejecting any US involvement in a devastating regional war launched by a genocidal maniac – one that would needlessly risk American lives and squander national interest,” he added, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israel, which is carrying out a military campaign in Gaza that major rights groups have described as a genocide, has been warning for years that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
While Israel has portrayed its strikes as “preemptive” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Tehran says the war was unprovoked and violates the United Nations Charter’s rules against aggression.
US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard had certified in March that Washington “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”. Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency accused Iran for the first time in 20 years of breaching its nonproliferation obligations. Israel is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, speaks during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on Martin Makary’s nomination to be Commissioner of the Food and Drugs Administration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in March. File photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
June 15 (UPI) — Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Sunday that he is “not an absolute no” on the Trump administration’s House-passed budget reconciliation bill, which threatens cuts to social services and would increase the national spending deficit.
“I talked to the president last evening after the parade, and we’re trying to get to a better place in our conversations,” Paul said on NBC News’ Meet the Press Sunday. “And I’ve let him know that I’m not an absolute no.”
Paul has been a leading critic of the bill in its current form, along with a handful of other Republicans skeptical of the scope of the cuts. A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that shows that the measure would come at the expense of lower income Americans to benefit higher earners.
“I don’t have as much trouble with the tax cuts,” Paul continued. “I think there should be more spending cuts, but if they want my vote, they’ll have to negotiate,” specifically citing his opposition to raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars.
In its current form, the measure would increase the national deficit by $2.4 trillion over 10 years. Lawmakers are trying to pass the bill through a reconciliation process that only requires a simple majority for passage.
Paul said last week that tensions have come to the fore between him and his GOP colleagues, and that he was “uninvited” to a White House picnic that is typically attended by lawmakers and their families.
He called the move “petty vindictiveness,” and said he felt the White House was trying to “punish” him for his opposition to the bill as it stands. President Donald Trump said on his social media platform that “of course” Paul was invited to the picnic.
Republicans can only afford to lose three votes pending a tie breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance. The measure currently awaits action in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats. The body has taken a more conservative approach in the negotiations than the House.
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Friday signed the controversial emergency spending bill for the Iraq war as antiwar activists assailed congressional Democrats for dropping their demands that the legislation include timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops.
Bush’s action ended his first major fight with the new Congress over the war, but Democratic leaders vowed to continue their effort to force an end to the 4-year-old war.
“We are going to come back in other pieces of legislation … and keep coming back,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.
Democrats’ decision to pull back on the timetable issue reflected political realities: With most Republicans continuing to support Bush on the war, Democrats do not have enough votes to impose deadlines over the president’s objections. And, although they oppose the war, many Democrats are leery of doing anything that might be construed as not supporting the troops in the field — such as holding back funding.
Democratic strategists are planning for the next battle.
The most immediate opportunity may be a defense authorization bill scheduled to come before the Senate at the end of June. Some Democratic strategists are considering attaching withdrawal timelines to it.
But the next major showdown may come in September, when Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, is due to report on the progress of Bush’s U.S. troop buildup.
At that time, members of both parties will be more focused on their reelection campaigns, and the administration will need more money for the war.
“September is the moment of truth for this war,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said.
Although she voted against the almost-$120-billion spending measure, which included money for some nonmilitary items, Pelosi said it represented a “step in the direction of accountability that the Americans have demanded in the war in Iraq.”
Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) acknowledged the mounting pressure for change. “I think that the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it,” he said at a Capitol news conference.
Antiwar activists were enraged that 86 Democrats in the House and 37 in the Senate voted for the bill and vowed to hold the lawmakers accountable. Some activists even talked about recruiting primary challengers.
“Voters elected them in November to end the war. That’s the promise they made, and we expect them to deliver on it,” said Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org.
Bush signed the legislation without the fanfare that accompanied his veto of an earlier bill that included timelines.
“Rather than mandate arbitrary timetables for troop withdrawals or micromanage our military commanders, this legislation enables our servicemen and women to follow the judgment of commanders on the ground,” Bush said in a statement after signing the bill.
The legislation, which funds military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through Sept. 30, sets benchmarks for the Iraqi government in securing the country. If the Iraqis do not demonstrate progress by mid-July, U.S. reconstruction aid could be withheld, though Bush could waive that provision.
The bill also contained one of the Democratic majority’s top legislative priorities: the first increase in the federal minimum wage in a decade — to $7.25 an hour, from $5.15, to be phased in over two years.
The vote reflected the uncomfortable political bind facing House Democrats: Though they are in the majority, it was the GOP minority that assured the bill’s passage. Of the 226 Democrats voting in the House, 140 opposed it, while 194 of 196 Republicans voting gave their support.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who voted for the spending measure, said in a statement Friday: “Democrats have voted over and over again to change course in Iraq. But … we simply do not have the 67 votes at this point to overcome the president’s veto.”
“The problem here is that we have troops in harm’s way who must have the necessary equipment and support,” she said.
Pariser, however, said of the Democrats: “They’re in a very strong position to take the fight to the president. The country is with them. We think they have to make the president come to them, not go to where he is.”
Karen Jacob of Women’s Action for New Directions was among about a dozen antiwar activists from Democratic Rep. Joe Donnelly’s Indiana district who showed up at an event he held Friday at a grocery store. She said the group “just very politely expressed our dismay at his voting for this legislation.”
“We want to let the representatives know we’re very unhappy, and if they continue on this direction, we will work to replace them,” she said.
Complaints about the war will be only one sore subject that lawmakers are likely to hear about when they go home for their weeklong recess for Memorial Day. The immigration debate has stirred emotions, and many are angry about gas prices.
Still, Democratic leaders were all smiles Friday, citing the minimum wage increase and funding included in the bill for Gulf Coast hurricane recovery and agriculture disaster aid.
California is also expected to receive a good deal of money to shore up its system of its levees and combat drug trafficking on federal lands.
Bill Plaschke, thank you for your very informative column about Parkinson’s disease and your boxing exercise program. I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s about five years ago and joined Rock Steady boxing in Burbank six months ago. We do Tai Chi, dancing, speech, the gym machines and boxing. We also work on stretching and floor exercises. My family has noticed a difference in my gait and my endurance. I hope that everyone with Parkinson’s will take heed and find an exercise program specific to their needs. I never had a right jab before, but I have a good one now.
Sandy Kaufman North Hollywood
I’m often in the mood to punch him after reading one of Plaschke’s columns, but after reading Sunday’s column I wanted nothing more than to give him a hug. It reminds me that everyone is fighting a battle none of us can see. Be kind.
Bill Hokans Santa Ana
Years of using Bill Plaschke’s notoriously incorrect Super Bowl predictions for betting guidance has led me to believe that Bill owes me, as well as his many devoted readers, a significant debt. His brave and inspiring column revealing his ongoing battle with Parkinson’s disease repays that debt, and then some.
Rob Fleishman Placentia
Don’t mind admitting I was in tears reading about Bill Plaschke’s advancing Parkinson’s and the therapy that might slow the “motion-melting nightmare” down. A 78-year-old former rugby player with arthritis and a bum knee, I’m fortunate in not having to face the dreaded Parky (yet?). If it happens, I know where to go.
Rock on, Bill, and your truly inspiring gym mates. Kudos, also, to staff photographer Robert Gauthier … every picture, indeed, tells a story.
John D.B. Grimshaw Lake Forest
I too am living with Parkinson’s disease. Plaschke’s column helped to remind me that I am not alone and this dreaded disease indeed takes no prisoners no matter who you are. I wanted to thank Bill for his column bringing awareness, insight and hope to those of us diagnosed with Parkinson’s. Bill’s humanitarian columns with a tie-in to the world of sports showcase his best writing. Bill, your observations as a Parkinson’s suffer truly hit the mark and deeply resonated with me. I wish you, and all of us afflicted with this condition, the willingness and determination to move forward and to use the power of sport and exercise to combat this devastating disease.
Mike Feix Chino Hills
Champion Bill Plaschke goes toe to toe against challenger “Parky!” Plaschke delivers a vicious uppercut to his opponent. “Down goes Parky, Down goes Parky!”
They cut and ran, leaving an unpaid bill of £2,685, police said.
They were caught about three hours after leaving the ship at the airport and promptly arrested.
“The couple tried to leave the cruise liner in a hurry with their luggage, declining to pay the cost of expenditure linked to their holiday,” a National Police spokesperson said.
They now face charges of defrauding the cruise line.
Neither the cruise line or the passengers have been named.
They were described as a 23-year old male and a 18-year old female.
Police said the outstanding bill relates to ‘several consumptions’ and ‘various items linked to their room.’
WASHINGTON — The House narrowly voted Thursday to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Trump’s administration looks to follow through on work done by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk.
The package targets foreign aid programs and the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212.
Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States’ standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths.
“Cruelty is the point,” Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts.
The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands.
“This rescissions package sends $9.4 billion back to the U.S. Treasury,” said Rep. Lisa McClain, House Republican Conference chair. “That’s $9.4 billion of savings that taxpayers won’t see wasted. It’s their money.”
The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said the Senate would likely not take the bill up until July and after it has dealt with Trump’s big tax and immigration bill. He also said it’s possible the Senate could tweak the bill.
The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.
Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump’s sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump’s “America first” ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias.
In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic.
The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country.
About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries.
Democratic leadership, in urging their caucus to vote no, said that package would eliminate access to clean water for more than 3.6 million people and lead to millions more not having access to a school.
“Those Democrats saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point,” McClain said. “It’s about people in our country being put first.”
The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it’s slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country.
The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage, and highlight hometown heroes.
Advocacy groups that serve the world’s poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no.
“We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,” said Abby Maxman, president and chief executive of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability, but the measure before the House takes that tool away.
“These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,” McGovern said.
“This bill is good for Russia and China and undertakers,” added Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).
Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed.
“Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don’t use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn’t even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,” Roy said. “Well, let’s just reject this now.”
The EU is wrangling over a provision of Donald Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” for the US budget that could see European companies taxed higher than others in retaliation for certain taxes imposed on US enterprises overseas, the vice-chair of the European Parliament’s tax subcommittee has told Euronews.
The German European People’s Party MEP Markus Ferber said the European Commission has raised the proposed legislation—already approved by the House of Representatives—in ongoing tariff negotiations with the Trump administration.
“We are concerned because within this ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ there are special taxes aimed at jurisdictions that impose taxes on the US,” Ferber told Euronews.
He added that jurisdictions like the EU, which have already implemented the OECD agreement establishing a global minimum tax of 15% on multinationals, are directly targeted.
“It could also affect member states that have introduced a digital services tax,” he noted.
The OECD agreement, approved by 140 countries – though as yet unratified by the US – introduced a global minimum tax of 15% on the profits of multinational companies, regardless of where those profits are declared, with effect from 1 January 2024. The EU has transposed the agreement into law and applies it to multinationals operating within the Union, to the ire of the Trump administration.
Meanwhile countries such as Denmark, Portugal and Poland have implemented digital services taxes targeting US tech giants, while others are in the process of creating one.
The US is now looking to retaliate against taxes it deems unfair through a provision of the “Big Beautiful Bill” which would hit foreign investors with a bump in US income tax by five percent points each year, potentially taking the rate up to 20%, in addition to existing taxes.
The Commission is concerned, officials said.
According to Ferber, the EU executive has put this provision of the US budget bill on the negotiating table. “But we are not sure yet that the US agreed to put it in the basket,” the MEP said.
For several weeks, the EU and the US have been discussing a resolution to the trade dispute that has been ongoing since mid-March.
The US impose 50% tariffs on EU steel and aluminium, 25% on cars and 10% on all EU imports.
For its part, the EU has prepared countermeasures targeting around €115 billion worth of US products. These measures are either suspended until July or still awaiting approval by EU member states.
June 11 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly advanced legislation for a regulatory method for payment with stablecoins.
The cloture, which ended debate, was approved 68-30, including 18 Democrats. It clears the way for final approval for the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, or GENIUS. Two Republicans, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri, voted no.
A stablecoin, which supporters say is a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value, is typically pegged to another asset such as a currency such as a U.S. dollar or a commodity, including gold. Other digital cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, can experience significant price fluctuations and are not part of the Senate legislation.
For passage in the Senate, there needs to be at least 60 votes. On Tuesday, two House committees easily approved a bill that establishes a regulatory framework for digital assets, not just stablecoin, called the CLARITY Act.
“We want to bring cryptocurrency into the mainstream, and the GENIUS Act will help us do that,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, adding there was “more work to be done” for Congress in regard to digital assets, referring to the House’s bill.
The bill would require stablecoins to be fully backed by U.S. dollars or similar liquid assets, mandate annual audits for issuers with more than $50 billion in market capitalization and add language around foreign issuance.
The cloture ended an open amendments process. Democrats had sought to add a provision that would prevent President Donald Trump and other elected officials from profiting off stablecoins.
“Let me be clear, this did not happen by accident,” Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., said on the Senate floor before the vote. “It happened because we led. To those who said Washington could not act, to those who said Washington could not act, to those who doubted bipartisanship — let’s prove them wrong.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York voted against the bill along with other prominent Democrats.
“The GENIUS act attempts to set up some guardrails for buying and selling a type of cryptocurrency, one type called a stablecoin,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor before his no vote.
“Well, we need guardrails that ensure that government officials aren’t openly asking people to buy their coins in order to increase their personal profit or their family’s profit,” he added. “Where are those guardrails in this bill? They’re completely, totally absent.”
Some Democrats were concerned about foreign issuers, anti-money laundering standards, potential corporate issuance of stablecoins and Trump’s deepening ties to crypto ventures.
Trump and his wife, Melania, launched meme coins days before his inauguration on Jan. 20. His affiliated venture, World Liberty Financial, recently launched its stablecoin. Trump Media is planning to build a multi-billion dollar Bitcoin treasury. And American Bitcoin,a mining firm backed by his sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., is planning to go public via a Gryphon merger.
“It’s extremely unhelpful that we have a president who’s involved in this industry, and I would love to ban this activity, but that does not diminish the excellent work of this legislation,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who approved the measure, said.
“It does not diminish the hard work that bipartisan group of senators put into this to make a difference and to write a law that can protect consumers, that can protect our financial services industry, that can protect the strength of the dollar, and that can protect people who would like access to capital.”
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who voted against cloture, said: “Through his crypto business, Trump has created an efficient means to trade presidential favors like tariff exemptions, pardons and government appointments for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars from foreign governments, from billionaires and from large corporations. By passing the GENIUS Act, the Senate is not only about to bless this corruption, but to actively facilitate its expansion.”
1 of 6 | Sen. Cory Booker, D-NY, said Tuesday he “transformed my agitation into legislation,” as faith leaders and lawmakers gathered for a ‘Moral Budget Vigil’ at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., to urge protection of Medicaid, SNAP and other vital programs. Photo by Aaron Schwartz/UPI | License Photo
June 10 (UPI) — Democratic senators joined hundreds of faith leaders on the Capitol steps Tuesday in Washington, D.C., to denounce SNAP and Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump‘s massive budget proposal.
The event — called the “Moral Budget Vigil” and organized by the Georgetown University Center on Faith and Justice, Sojourners, Skinner Leadership Institute and the National African American Clergy Network — included prayers, song and scripture. A meeting with Democratic senators followed.
Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who is also a reverend at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, criticized the budget for “giving wealthy people a tax cut.”
“Show me your budget and I’ll show you who you think matters and who does not — who you think is dispensable,” Warnock said. “My mind and my imagination and my heart had been arrested by the heartbeat of children who should not lose their food and who should not lose healthcare in order to give wealthy people a tax cut.”
The budget, which the White House calls the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” cleared the U.S. House in May by a narrow margin. It would make Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent and could add trillions to the national debt, according to analysts.
Faith leaders claim the bill would also cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program — or SNAP — and Medicaid coverage for millions of low-income children, families and people with disabilities.
Trump has said he only wants to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse” from the Medicaid program and would not make direct cuts to benefits. The bill also calls for changes to SNAP by imposing stricter work requirements.
The Rev. Jim Wallis, who advised the Obama administration, called the budget plan a “big, bad bill,” which he argued would “take 60 million people off of health care.”
Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware claimed the bill “literally takes the food from the mouths of hungry children to pass an enormous tax cut for the very wealthiest and is the definition of an immoral bill before this Congress.”
Warnock, who calls it the “Big Ugly Bill,” recounted how he protested another Trump budget bill eight years ago with prayer and song inside the Capitol rotunda.
“As I stood there, I said then what I want to say today: That a budget is not just a fiscal document, it is a moral document.”
Warnock was arrested during that protest in 2017 and credited the Capitol Police for being professional.
“Here I am eight years later, having transformed my agitation into legislation,” Warnock added. “I’m here today because I still know how to agitate — I still know how to protest. I’m not a senator who used to be a pastor. I’m a pastor in the Senate.”
Spoke to some folks who came to Washington today to bear witness and stand against the Big Ugly Bill. If we raise our voices together, we can beat this. pic.twitter.com/7kj9XRHnnI— Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (@SenatorWarnock) June 10, 2025
From Bill Plaschke: They pull giant boxing gloves over aging, sometimes shaking hands.
They approach a black punching bag on weary, sometimes wobbly feet.
Then they wail.
They hit the bag with a left-handed jab, a right-handed reverse, a hook, another hook, an uppercut, another jab, bam, bam, bam.
They end the flurry with kicks, side kicks, thrust kicks, wild kicks, their legs suddenly strong and purposeful and fueled by a strength that once seemed impossible.
Outside of this small gym in a nondescript office park in Monrovia, they are elderly people dealing with the motion-melting nightmare that is Parkinson’s disease.
But inside the walls of Kaizen Martial Arts & Fitness, in a program known as Kaizen Kinetics, they are heavyweight champs.
Ranging in age from 50 to 90, spanning the spectrum of swift strides to wheelchairs, they are the most courageous athletes I’ve met.
I am in awe of them, perhaps because I am one of them.
Get the latest on L.A.’s teams in the daily Sports Report newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
NBA PLAYOFFS RESULTS
All Times Pacific
NBA FINALS
Oklahoma City vs. Indiana
Indiana 111, at Oklahoma City 110 (box score, story) at Oklahoma City 123, Indiana 107 (box score, story) Wednesday at Indiana, 5:30 p.m., ABC Friday at Indiana, 5:30 p.m., ABC Monday at Oklahoma City, 5:30 p.m., ABC Thursday, June 19 at Indiana, 5:30 p.m., ABC* Sunday, June 22 at Oklahoma City, 5 p.m., ABC*
The Big Ten Player of the Year — a projected No. 1 overall pick in the 2026 MLB draft by some analysts — turned Charles Schwab Field in Omaha into a playground during the Big Ten tournament, winning player of the tournament honors despite UCLA not claiming the championship.
So far, in the NCAA tournament, Cholowsky had been uncharacteristically quiet for his standards. He still made hard plays look easy as a “premium shortstop” — as UCLA coach John Savage glowed about his defensive skills — but his bat wasn’t making its usual noise.
Cholowsky finally had his moment Sunday.
Cholowsky’s RBI single off that strike in the fifth, a part of his two-for-five day, clinched UCLA’s spot in the Men’s College World Series with a 7-0 victory over Texas San Antonio. The two-game sweep of the Roadrunners gave the Bruins their sixth berth to Omaha and first since 2013, when they won it all.
From Kevin Baxter: The Dodgers have sent Clayton Kershaw to the mound to give a slumping team a lift countless times during his 18-year career. And they’ve rarely been disappointed.
They did it again on a sultry Sunday afternoon in St. Louis and once again Kershaw delivered, earning his first win of the season in a 7-3 victory over the Cardinals that broke a two-game losing streak and ended a slide that had seen the Dodgers lose five of their last seven.
“He’s been a stopper for many years. He’s been a staff ace for many years. He’s going to the Hall of Fame,” Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said before the game. “So he understands. And he’s going to be prepared.”
George Kirby struck out a career-high 14 during seven innings of two-hit ball, and the Seattle Mariners snapped their five-game losing streak with a 3-2 victory over the Angels on Sunday.
Kirby (1-3) issued no walks while retiring both his first 11 and his final 10 batters. His strikeouts were the most by a Mariners pitcher since James Paxton had 16 in May 2018, and he matched Miami’s Max Meyer for the most strikeouts in a major league game this season.
Taylor Ward hit a two-run homer in the fourth for the Halos, who struck out 18 times overall while losing for only the second time in six games.
Denis Bouanga had a goal and two assists, Eddie Segura scored his first goal since 2020 and LAFC extended its MLS unbeaten streak to nine games with a 3-1 win over Sporting Kansas City on Sunday night at BMO Stadium.
Bouanga converted from the penalty spot in the 59th to give LAFC (7-4-5), which had 56% possession and outshot Kansas City 21-5, a 2-1 lead.
Dejan Joveljic scored a goal for the fourth consecutive game when he ran onto a through ball played ahead by Manu García, and scored from near the penalty spot to make it 1-0 in the 39th minute.
Coco Gauff won the French Open for the first time by defeating top-ranked Aryna Sabalenka 6-7 (5), 6-2, 6-4 in Saturday’s final for her second Grand Slam singles title.
The second-ranked Gauff made fewer mistakes in a contest that was full of tension and momentum swings to get the better of Sabalenka for the second time in a Grand Slam final. She also came from a set down to beat the Belarusian in the 2023 U.S. Open final.
Gauff raised the winner’s trophy aloft, then kissed it several times. She held her hand over her heart when the U.S. national anthem played. She is the first American woman to win at Roland-Garros since Serena Williams in 2015.
She then thanked her parents for doing everything “from washing my clothes to keeping me grounded and giving me the belief that I can do it.”
“You guys probably believe in me more than myself,” Gauff said in her on-court speech.
It was the first No. 1 vs. No. 2 final in Paris since 2013, when Williams defeated Maria Sharapova, and just the second in the last 30 years.
Carlos Alcaraz rallied from two sets down and saved three match points to beat Jannik Sinner 4-6, 6-7 (4), 6-4, 7-6 (3), 7-6 (10-2) on Sunday and win the French Open title for a second straight year.
Alcaraz, who won his fifth Grand Slam tournament in as many finals, produced one of the greatest comebacks in the history of the clay-court tournament.
It was even better than his performance here last year, when he came back from 2-1 down in sets in the final against Alexander Zverev. But this time Alcaraz emulated Novak Djokovic’s feat from the 2021 final at Roland-Garros, where he fought back from two sets down to beat Stefanos Tsitsipas.
Edmonton vs. Florida at Edmonton 4, Florida 3 (OT) (summary, story) Florida 5, at Edmonton 4 (2 OT) (summary, story) Monday at Florida, 5 p.m., TNT Thursday at Florida, 5 p.m., TNT Saturday at Edmonton, 5 p.m., TNT Tuesday, June 17 at Florida, 5 p.m., TNT* Friday, June 20 at Edmonton, 5 p.m., TNT*
* If necessary
THIS DAY IN SPORTS HISTORY
1888 — James McLaughlin sets the record for wins by a jockey in the Belmont Stakes, six, when he rides Sir Dixon to a 12-length victory. McLaughlin’s record is matched by Eddie Arcaro in 1955.
1899 — Jim Jeffries knocks out Bob Fitzsimmons in the 11th round in New York to win the world heavyweight title.
1930 — Paavo Nurmi runs world record 6 mile (29:36.4).
1934 — Olin Dutra edges Gene Sarazen by one stroke to win the U.S. Open.
1940 — Lawson Little beats Gene Sarazen by three strokes in a playoff to win the U.S. Open golf title.
1945 — Hoop Jr. wins the Kentucky Derby, which is run one month after a national wartime government ban on racing is lifted.
1946 — Joe Louis KOs Billy Conn in 8 for heavyweight boxing title.
1973 — Secretariat, ridden by Ron Turcotte, wins the Belmont Stakes in record time to capture the Triple Crown. Secretariat sets a world record on the 1½-mile course with 2:24, and a record for largest margin of victory in the Belmont, 31 lengths.
1978 — Larry Holmes scores a 15-round split decision over Ken Norton for the WBC heavyweight title in New York.
1979 — Coastal, ridden by Ruben Hernandez, spoils Spectacular Bid’s attempt at the Triple Crown with a 3¼-length victory over Golden Act. Spectacular Bid finishes third.
1984 — Swale, ridden by Laffit Pincay, wins the Belmont Stakes by four lengths over Pine Circle. Swale dies eight days later.
1984 — French Open Women’s Tennis: Martina Navratilova beats Chris Evert 6-3, 6-1; 2nd women in Open Era to hold all 4 Grand Slam titles at once.
1985 — Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scores 29 points to lead the Lakers to a 111-100 victory over the Boston Celtics and the NBA title in six games.
1990 — Monica Seles holds off four set points in the first set tiebreaker and goes on to become the youngest winner of the French Open, beating two-time champion Steffi Graf 7-6 (8-6), 6-4. Seles is 16 years, six months.
1991 — In the first all-American men’s final at the French Open since 1954, Jim Courier rallies to beat Andre Agassi 3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4 for his first Grand Slam title.
1993 — Patrick Roy makes 18 saves and the Montreal Canadiens capture their 24th Stanley Cup, beating the Kings 4-1 in Game 5.
2001 — Stanley Cup Final, Pepsi Center, Denver, CO: Colorado Avalanche beat defending champion New Jersey Devils, 3-1 for 4-3 series win; Avalanche 2nd title.
2001 — Jennifer Capriati beats Kim Clijsters 1-6, 6-4, 12-10 to win the French Open, her second consecutive Grand Slam title.
2003 — The New Jersey Devils end the Mighty Ducks’ surreal season, winning the Stanley Cup with a 3-0 victory. Mike Rupp, who had never appeared in a playoff until Game 4, scores the first goal and sets up Jeff Friesen for the other two.
2007 — Rags to Riches, a filly ridden by John Velazquez, outduels Curlin in a breathtaking stretch run and won the Belmont Stakes, becoming the first of her sex to take the final leg of the Triple Crown in more than a century.
2010 — Chicago’s Patrick Kane sneaks the puck past Michael Leighton 4:10 into overtime, stunning Philadelphia and lifting the Blackhawks to a 4-3 overtime win in Game 6 for their first Stanley Cup championship since 1961.
2013 — Rafael Nadal becomes the first man to win eight titles at the same Grand Slam tournament after beating fellow Spaniard David Ferrer in the French Open final, 6-3, 6-2, 6-3.
2018 — Justify becomes the 13th Triple Crown winner by winning the Belmont Stakes with Mike Smith aboard.
2019 — French Open Men’s Tennis: Rafael Nadal beats Austrian Dominic Thiem 6-3, 5-7, 6-1, 6-1; 3rd straight French singles title; 12th overall; first to win 12 singles titles at same Grand Slam; 18th major.
2022 — The controversial Saudi-backed LIV Golf Invitational Series gets underway at the Centurion Club, Hertfordshire; PGA suspends 17 participating players.
2024 — French Open Men’s Tennis: Carlos Alcaraz becomes the youngest man to win grand slams on all three surfaces, coming back to beat Alexander Zverev 6-3, 2-6, 5-7, 6-1, 6-2 in a final lasting 4 hours 15 minutes
THIS DAY IN BASEBALL HISTORY
1901 — The New York Giants set a major league record with 31 hits in beating Cincinnati 25-13. Al Selbach of the Giants went 6-for-7 with two doubles and four singles and scored four runs.
1906 — Boston snapped a 19-game losing streak by beating the St. Louis Cardinals 6-3.
1914 — Honus Wagner of the Pittsburgh Pirates got the 3,000th hit of his career off Philadelphia’s Erskine Mayer in a 3-1 loss to the Phillies at the Baker Bowl. Wagner’s hit, a double, came in the ninth. Wagner joined Cap Anson as the only members of the 3,000-hit club.
1935 — The St. Louis Cardinals became the 10th team in major league history to score a run in every inning in a 13-2 win over the Chicago Cubs.
1946 — Commissioner Happy Chandler imposed five-year suspensions on players who jumped to the Mexican League and three-year suspensions for those who broke the reserve clause.
1946 — The New York Giants’ Mel Ott became the first manager to be ejected in both ends of a doubleheader. The Pittsburgh Pirates won both games, 2-1 and 5-1.
1963 — Playing the first Sunday night game in major league history because of excessive heat during the day, the Houston Colt .45s handed the San Francisco Giants their seventh straight loss in Houston, 3-0. Turk Farrell and Skinny Brown pitched the shutout.
1966 — Rich Rollins, Zoilo Versalles, Tony Oliva, Don Mincher and Harmon Killebrew homered in the seventh inning for the Minnesota Twins in a 9-4 victory over the Kansas City Athletics.
1979 — Nolan Ryan struck out 16 batters as the Angels beat the Detroit Tigers 9-1. It was the 21st time in his career he struck out 15 or more batters in one game.
1986 — White Sox pitcher Tom Seaver (306) and Angels hurler Don Sutton (298) had the highest composite win total (604) for opposing pitchers since 1926, when Walter Johnson (406) faced Red Faber (197). Sutton pitched a two-hit shutout to beat the White Sox 3-0.
1990 — Eddie Murray of the Dodgers tied Mickey Mantle’s record by homering from each side of the plate in the same game for the 10th time in his career. The Dodgers beat the Padres 5-4 in 11 innings.
1998 — Cecil Fielder of the Angels and Yamil Benitez of the Diamondbacks each hit grand slams in the same inning in Anaheim’s 10-8 win over Arizona. It was the first time both teams hit grand slams in the same inning since 1992.
2008 — Ken Griffey Jr. became the sixth player in baseball history to reach 600 homers with a drive off Mark Hendrickson in the first inning of the Cincinnati Reds’ 9-4 victory over the Florida Marlins.
2014 — Lonnie Chisenhall had nine RBIs and three home runs in a five-hit game, Michael Brantley scored five times and the Cleveland Indians beat the Texas Rangers 17-7.
2015 — Chris Heston pitched the first no-hitter in his 13th career start, leading the San Francisco Giants over the New York Mets 5-0. The rookie allowed three baserunners — all on hit batters. He also had a two-run single for his first big league RBIs and finished with two more hits than the Mets.
2019 — The Nationals accomplish a very rare feat as four consecutive batters hit solo homers in the 8th inning in Petco Park in San Diego to break a 1-1 tie. Pinch-hitter Howie Kendrick starts things off against Craig Stammen, and is followed by Trea Turner, Adam Eaton and Anthony Rendon, who all go yard. This is only the ninth time in major league history this has happened, and the Nats were the last to do so, on July 27, 2017.
2019 — Former Boston Red Sox star David Ortiz shot in the back while visiting in his native Dominican Republic.
2022 — The Twins open the bottom of the 1st against the Yankees with three consecutive homers off Gerrit Cole at Target Field, by Luis Arraez, Byron Buxton and Carlos Correa. This is the first time in franchise history this has happened.
Compiled by the Associated Press
Until next time…
That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at [email protected]. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
