The memorandum of understanding signed by President Donald Trump initiates a 60-day negotiating period to reach a final agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. While administration allies emphasized that the deal is not final, provisions involving the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and the creation of a reported $300 billion reconstruction fund have drawn criticism from within Trump’s own party.

Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that the arrangement could weaken longstanding U.S. pressure on Tehran.

“President Trump has pursued peace through strength. I hope the intermediaries working on this deal are not undermining that objective,” Wicker said, also comparing the proposed reconstruction fund to Iran-related provisions under the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear agreement.

Wicker said the proposed financial framework “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison,” though the administration has indicated the United States would not directly contribute to the fund.

GOP lawmakers raise concerns over financial terms

As the memorandum was circulated among lawmakers, several Republican senators raised questions about its economic provisions and enforcement mechanisms. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said they were seeking clarity on how financial incentives would be structured and how compliance with restrictions on terrorism financing would be enforced.

Rounds said the agreement left unresolved questions about “how this is going to be implemented,” warning that “a lot of money’s going to go to Iran.”

Other Republicans aligned more closely with the administration’s foreign policy approach defended the agreement’s intent, arguing it preserves leverage by conditioning Iran’s future behavior.

Sen. Roger Marshall said in a social media post that key provisions would help ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon, framing the agreement as strengthening regional security.

Louisiana GOP Senate candidate John Fleming suggested the deal’s credibility would depend on enforcement, saying it reflects a “speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick” approach that retains the possibility of military action if Iran fails to comply.

Trump defends interim agreement amid criticism

President Trump rejected criticism of the agreement, calling detractors “fools” on his Truth Social platform and dismissing concerns about the reported $300 billion reconstruction fund as “fake news.” He reiterated that no U.S. taxpayer funds would be used.

“All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil Prices, and Victory,” Trump posted.

The administration maintains that sanctions relief and postwar economic measures are part of a broader strategy to stabilize the region while continuing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program during the 60-day window.

Conservative allies and media voices warn of risks

Opposition to the agreement also emerged from influential conservative commentators and Trump-aligned media figures, some of whom argued the timing and structure of the deal could undermine U.S. leverage.

Conservative radio host Mark Levin suggested delaying any agreement until after the upcoming midterm elections, arguing that U.S. military readiness and energy policy considerations should take precedence.

Right-wing commentator Laura Loomer questioned the intelligence behind the negotiations, posting on X: “Who is giving the President tainted, pro-Islamic intel?”

Former Vice President Mike Pence also criticized the arrangement, describing it as overly conciliatory toward Tehran and reflecting long-standing distrust of the Iranian government.

Questions persist in Senate over implementation

Despite divisions within the Republican Party, lawmakers across several factions continued to raise concerns about implementation, oversight, and long-term consequences for U.S. foreign policy. The memorandum’s 60-day negotiating window now sets the stage for further congressional scrutiny as details of enforcement and funding mechanisms remain under review.

Tags: Senate Armed Services Committee, Iran Nuclear Program, US Iran Relations, Sanctions Policy, Republican Party, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy Negotiations, Midterm Elections, Oil Markets, National Security

The post Republican Lawmakers Split Over Trump’s Iran War-Ending Agreement as Nuclear Deal Concerns Mount appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The move follows days of congressional criticism directed at Noem’s leadership of the United States Department of Homeland Security and comes as lawmakers continue to debate funding and oversight of the agency responsible for enforcing the administration’s immigration agenda.

Trump said he would nominate Markwayne Mullin, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, to lead the department. The announcement was made on social media after Noem faced intense questioning from both Republicans and Democrats during hearings on Capitol Hill earlier in the week.

The leadership change introduces fresh uncertainty for immigration policy at a moment when the administration’s enforcement strategy has become a central political issue in Washington and across several major U.S. cities.

Leadership Pressure Builds Inside Homeland Security

Trump publicly praised Noem’s work even as he confirmed her departure, saying she had delivered “numerous and spectacular results” in strengthening border enforcement.

At the same time, the president announced that Noem would be reassigned to a newly created diplomatic role focused on regional security initiatives in the Western Hemisphere.

Shortly after the announcement, Noem appeared at a law-enforcement event in Nashville, where she delivered prepared remarks but did not directly address her removal from the Cabinet position.

In a later social media statement, she thanked Trump for the new role and defended her record leading DHS, saying the department had achieved “historic accomplishments” aimed at strengthening national security.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration would work with the Senate to confirm Mullin “as soon as possible,” calling him highly qualified to lead the department.

Congressional Scrutiny Intensifies Over Immigration Strategy

Noem’s tenure had come under mounting pressure in recent months as lawmakers examined the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics and internal spending decisions at DHS.

During hearings on Capitol Hill, members of both parties questioned a $220 million public messaging campaign encouraging migrants in the United States without legal status to leave voluntarily.

According to Reuters, Trump said in an interview Thursday that he had not personally approved the campaign, contradicting testimony in which Noem told lawmakers the president had been informed about the initiative in advance.

The issue added to broader political tensions surrounding the administration’s immigration enforcement operations, which have frequently involved large-scale arrests and high-visibility raids in major cities.

Political Fallout From Minneapolis Enforcement Clash

Political pressure intensified following a controversial enforcement operation earlier this year in Minneapolis, where two protesters were shot and killed during a confrontation with immigration enforcement officers.

Noem initially described the individuals involved, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as aggressors during the incident. Video recordings and witness accounts later raised questions about that characterization, prompting sustained criticism during congressional testimony.

The clash became a flashpoint in the national debate over the administration’s immigration policy and contributed to broader scrutiny of DHS operations in cities including Los Angeles and Chicago.

Local officials were among those welcoming the leadership change. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey reacted to the news on social media, while Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, also signaled approval of Noem’s departure.

Funding Battles and Oversight Disputes Add Pressure

The leadership change comes amid a broader political dispute over funding and operational authority at DHS.

Lawmakers have been locked in negotiations over immigration enforcement spending, and the department has recently experienced a prolonged shutdown affecting parts of its workforce.

According to people familiar with the discussions, Senate Republicans privately suggested to Democrats during negotiations that Noem’s potential removal might help ease tensions and allow funding talks to move forward.

Democratic lawmakers, however, reportedly viewed the situation differently, arguing that replacing the department’s leadership did not fundamentally alter the administration’s immigration strategy.

Confirmation Fight Looms for Mullin

If confirmed, Mullin would assume control of a department responsible for implementing some of the administration’s most politically sensitive policies, including immigration enforcement and border security.

Under federal law governing executive branch vacancies, Mullin could serve in an acting capacity while the Senate considers his nomination.

Speaking shortly after Trump’s announcement, the senator said he did not know how quickly the confirmation process might proceed but emphasized his close working relationship with the president.

“The president and I are good friends,” Mullin told reporters following a Senate vote. “We look forward to working closer with the White House.”

Immigration Agenda Faces Next Political Test

The leadership transition arrives at a pivotal moment for the administration’s immigration strategy, which has relied heavily on high-profile enforcement operations often documented on social media and in televised coverage.

Several of those operations were overseen by Border Patrol official Gregory Bovino, who had been elevated under Noem’s leadership to coordinate crackdowns in multiple major cities.

Supporters inside law enforcement defended her tenure. Bovino told The Associated Press that Noem was “the best Secretary I ever worked for,” praising her support for enforcement personnel.

But critics argue the leadership change may do little to alter the broader direction of immigration policy.

Advocacy groups such as America’s Voice say the policy agenda itself remains the central political issue rather than the individual leading the department.

Political Outlook for Immigration Policy

With Senate confirmation looming for Mullin and lawmakers continuing to debate immigration funding, the leadership shift could reshape congressional negotiations in the months ahead.

The new nominee will inherit a department at the center of national political debate — balancing enforcement priorities, disaster response responsibilities, and oversight from both parties on Capitol Hill.

How Mullin navigates those pressures may determine whether the administration can stabilize its immigration strategy or faces further political confrontation as the policy debate intensifies.

The post Trump Fires Homeland Security Secretary Noem Amid Immigration Policy Pressure appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The board — reshaped in recent months by Trump-appointed members — voted unanimously to adopt the new title: the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. The announcement was confirmed by the White House shortly after the decision was made.

The move immediately drew criticism from Democratic lawmakers and members of the John F. Kennedy family, who argue that the board lacks the authority to alter a name established by federal law.

As first reported by The Associated Press, the center’s official website was updated soon after the vote, reflecting the new branding even as questions about its legal standing intensified.

Legal Authority Under Immediate Scrutiny

Critics say the board may have acted beyond its statutory powers.

According to former Senate historian Donald A. Ritchie, Congress formally designated the performing arts complex in 1964 following Kennedy’s assassination. Because the name was codified through legislation, he noted, any permanent change would likely require congressional action.

“Congress named the center, and it would be up to Congress to amend the law,” Ritchie explained, suggesting the board could adopt an informal title but not one that carries legal force.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed that position, arguing the board’s action bypasses Congress.

“Only Congress can rename the Kennedy Center,” Jeffries said during remarks to reporters.

The dispute now raises the possibility of a legal challenge that could determine whether the board’s vote represents symbolic branding or an enforceable institutional change.

Partisan Divide Deepens Around Cultural Policy

The renaming vote has widened partisan divisions over Trump’s expanding role in the institution.

Supporters say the change recognizes the president’s renewed investment in the center since returning to office earlier this year. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham described the move as justified recognition of Trump’s efforts to revitalize the venue.

Democratic board members, however, say they were sidelined during the process.

Representative Joyce Beatty said she attempted to raise objections during the board meeting but was muted while participating remotely. She characterized the vote as an attempt to sidestep public input and legal procedure.

A spokesperson for the center disputed that claim, saying all members were invited to attend the meeting in person and were given access to listen remotely, even if they did not have voting authority.

The clash underscores how cultural institutions in Washington are increasingly becoming arenas for broader ideological conflict.

Kennedy Family Condemns the Move

Members of the Kennedy family reacted sharply to the board’s decision.

Journalist and author Maria Shriver called the idea of attaching Trump’s name to the memorial “beyond comprehension,” arguing it undermines the legacy of the late president whose administration championed federal support for the arts.

Her brother, Tim Shriver, described the change as “an insult to a great president” in comments posted on social media.

The disagreement highlights a rare moment of open tension between the Kennedy political legacy and the current administration — a dynamic complicated by the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Kennedy family member, now serves in Trump’s Cabinet.

Cultural Programming and Institutional Stability Tested

The renaming controversy comes amid a broader transformation of the performing arts center under Trump’s leadership as board chairman.

Since returning to office in January, the president has replaced several board members originally appointed by Democratic administrations with political allies. Those changes have helped consolidate influence over the institution’s direction and programming.

Trump has repeatedly criticized previous artistic programming as overly political and has pledged to reshape the center’s cultural identity. His administration also secured more than $250 million in federal funding for renovations, including theater upgrades and structural improvements.

Yet the shift has also produced turbulence within the performing arts community.

Several performers and consultants have stepped away from planned appearances or advisory roles, while touring productions — including the Broadway musical Hamilton — have canceled scheduled runs at the venue. Subscription sales have reportedly declined, and some performances have played to visibly sparse audiences.

Congressional Action May Decide the Outcome

The long-term fate of the renaming may ultimately rest on Capitol Hill.

Representative Bob Onder introduced legislation earlier this year that would formally rename the arts complex the Donald J. Trump Center for the Performing Arts. The proposal has not yet advanced in committee.

Until Congress acts, the board’s vote leaves the institution operating in a legal gray zone — caught between symbolic branding and statutory designation.

For Washington’s premier cultural venue, the dispute reflects a broader question now shaping the capital’s cultural landscape: whether national arts institutions can remain politically neutral as presidential administrations assert greater influence over their leadership and identity.

The post Trump-Backed Kennedy Center Renaming Triggers Legal and Cultural Power Struggle in Washington appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published by Vanity Fair and based on more than ten conversations with journalist Chris Whipple, the interviews revealed unusually direct assessments of the president’s leadership style, his governing instincts, and several high-profile members of his political circle.

As first reported by CNN, the remarks have reverberated through political and media circles in Washington, raising questions about internal alignment within the White House and how policy decisions are shaped behind closed doors.

The interviews, conducted over the past year, were published as part of Whipple’s book The Gatekeepers, widely regarded as a definitive examination of the White House chief-of-staff role.

Leadership Style at the Center of the Debate

Among the most widely discussed comments were Wiles’ observations about Trump’s governing personality.

Despite the president’s well-known avoidance of alcohol, Wiles suggested his approach to power reflects what she described as “an alcoholic’s personality,” explaining that highly driven personalities can become more intense under pressure.

She characterized Trump as someone who operates with a belief that there are few practical limits on presidential authority.

The president later addressed the remark in an interview with the New York Post, acknowledging that he has what he called a “possessive and addictive personality,” while praising Wiles’ performance as chief of staff and dismissing speculation about her position.

Retribution Debate Raises Questions About Governance

The interviews also shed light on one of the defining themes of Trump’s second term: the role of political retaliation in shaping government actions.

Wiles acknowledged that some critics could reasonably interpret legal actions against Trump’s opponents as vindictive. In discussing the unsuccessful prosecution of former James Comey, she conceded that observers might see elements of retribution in such moves.

“I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” Wiles said in the interviews, adding that the president is nonetheless willing to pursue opportunities for it when they arise.

The remarks have intensified debates in Washington about how the administration balances political objectives with institutional norms.

Policy Disagreements Surface Inside the Administration

Beyond personal dynamics, the interviews revealed several instances in which Wiles said the president rejected her advice on policy decisions.

Among them were disagreements over deportation practices, where she suggested the administration should more carefully avoid wrongful removals, and disputes about tariff announcements that triggered divisions among economic advisers.

She also said she urged Trump not to issue pardons to the most violent participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack — advice that ultimately went unheeded.

These comments offer a rare glimpse into the policymaking process inside the West Wing, where the chief of staff typically operates as a gatekeeper between the president and competing factions.

Foreign Policy Signals Complicate Messaging

One of the more consequential revelations involved the administration’s posture toward Nicolás Maduro.

Wiles suggested that Trump’s strategy toward the Venezuelan government included aggressive maritime strikes aimed at forcing concessions from Caracas — remarks that appeared to diverge from official explanations offered publicly by the administration.

The comments could raise new questions in diplomatic circles about the coherence of U.S. messaging on Latin America policy.

Sharp Assessments of Allies Add to Tension

Wiles’ interviews also included blunt descriptions of several prominent figures within the administration and its broader political network.

She described Vice President JD Vance as having spent years engaged with conspiracy-theory narratives before aligning politically with Trump. Vance later responded publicly, acknowledging that he occasionally entertains conspiracy theories but defending Wiles as a loyal adviser.

The chief of staff also criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi for mishandling public expectations around documents connected to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

And in comments about technology billionaire Elon Musk, she described him as eccentric while expressing alarm at his role in dismantling the United States Agency for International Development.

Administration Moves to Contain Fallout

Shortly after the article’s publication, Wiles pushed back against its framing in a statement posted on the social platform X.

She argued the piece had removed context from her remarks and described it as a “disingenuously framed hit piece” targeting both her and the administration.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also issued a statement defending Wiles, saying the president had no more loyal adviser and that the administration remained united behind her leadership.

Whipple, however, defended the reporting in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, stating that all of the interviews were recorded and accurately reflected their context.

Internal Reactions Reveal Political Sensitivity

Inside Trump’s political orbit, the interviews have reportedly sparked intense private discussion.

According to CNN, advisers and allies circulated the remarks widely in internal group chats, with some expressing surprise at the unusually direct tone from one of the administration’s most disciplined political operators.

For many observers, the central question is not only why Wiles spoke so candidly but what the episode reveals about the internal dynamics shaping the president’s second-term agenda.

While the White House has sought to project unity, the interviews offer a rare window into how competing perspectives and personal loyalties continue to shape the administration’s governing style.

The post Candid Susie Wiles Interviews Expose Growing Fault Lines Inside Trump’s Second-Term Power Structure appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Sources told Reuters that Moscow passed the paper — described in diplomatic terminology as a “non-paper” — to senior U.S. officials shortly after a meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in Washington in mid-October. While non-papers are often exchanged informally during negotiations to outline positions without formal attribution, this one echoed longstanding Russian conditions Ukraine has repeatedly rejected, including surrendering significant eastern territory.

The U.S. State Department and the Russian and Ukrainian embassies in Washington did not comment. The White House declined to address the document directly but referenced Trump’s recent remarks expressing optimism about progress on the peace initiative.

Russian Input Confirmed in U.S. Proposal

This marks the first confirmation that the Russian non-paper was used as a meaningful reference point for the U.S. proposal. The document contained language and concessions Russia has raised at previous negotiation attempts, including at talks in 2022 that stalled within weeks of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Ukraine has consistently ruled out territorial concessions, with President Zelenskiy stating that sovereignty and internationally recognized borders remain non-negotiable.

In a written statement, Trump said he had directed his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow while Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll held parallel talks with Ukrainian officials. The sequencing of those meetings, and the limited visibility among senior U.S. agencies, left several officials questioning how the Russian non-paper became intertwined with elements of the American plan.

Some U.S. officials who reviewed the document, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, believed the Russian terms would be rejected immediately by Kyiv, according to two sources. Rubio later acknowledged receiving “numerous written non-papers,” though he declined to elaborate.

Growing Skepticism in Washington and Europe

Since the plan first emerged in media reports last week, skepticism has intensified across U.S. government agencies and among lawmakers. Critics argue the proposal closely mirrors Russian positions rather than reflecting a balanced diplomatic effort.

Despite concerns, the United States has pressed Kyiv to engage with the framework and warned that military assistance could be reconsidered if Ukraine refused to participate, according to the sources. U.S. military support for Ukraine has totaled more than $70 billion since the invasion, according to publicly available data, making continued assistance central to Ukraine’s ability to sustain its defense.

The plan was drafted in part during a meeting in Miami last month involving Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, special envoy Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, who heads one of Russia’s sovereign wealth funds. Two people familiar with the matter said few officials inside the State Department or White House were informed about the discussions.

On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that Witkoff had offered communication advice to senior Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov regarding how Putin should speak to Trump. Call transcripts reviewed by the news agency referred to a potential “20-point plan” as early as October 14, which later expanded through subsequent exchanges involving Dmitriev.

Plan Scaled Back After Diplomatic Backlash

The U.S. proposal surprised officials in Washington and European capitals, triggering urgent consultations across three continents. According to ABC News, nine of the original 28 points have been removed following discussions between senior U.S. and Ukrainian officials.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators said over the weekend that Rubio had described the proposal as a Russian “wish list,” a characterization the White House and State Department strongly denied. The contradiction fueled questions about how widely the plan was vetted inside the administration.

Diplomats familiar with the talks said a U.S. delegation, including Rubio, met European and Ukrainian counterparts in Geneva and agreed to remove or revise sections viewed as overly favorable to Moscow. Driscoll is currently holding discussions with a Russian delegation in Abu Dhabi, while Ukrainian officials have traveled to the United Arab Emirates for parallel meetings, a U.S. official confirmed.

Ukrainian officials said on Tuesday they supported the modified framework emerging from the latest round of talks but emphasized that the most sensitive points — especially territorial issues — could only be resolved in a direct meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump.

Unanswered Questions Over Influence and Process

It remains unclear why the Trump administration relied on a Russian-authored proposal to help shape its initial peace outline. Analysts note that non-papers can serve as informal diplomatic tools, but their use typically comes with broad interagency review. In this case, sources said only a small circle of advisers had access to the document before its content influenced the draft proposal.

European officials, who have backed Ukraine’s calls for a peace process based on the United Nations Charter, expressed concern that the U.S. plan appeared to diverge from internationally recognized conditions, including the withdrawal of Russian troops and restoration of territorial integrity. Several NATO governments were not given advance notice before the framework circulated.

Russia has repeatedly said it is open to negotiations but insists that Kyiv must accept the “new realities on the ground” — language referring to territory Russia claims to have annexed, moves not recognized by the United Nations.

Next Steps and Diplomatic Outlook

The updated U.S. plan remains under discussion, with further revisions expected. Zelenskiy has maintained that Ukraine will only support a peace agreement that ensures security guarantees, full sovereignty and accountability for wartime actions. Kyiv continues to advance its own 10-point peace formula, which includes nuclear safety, food security, prisoner exchanges and the withdrawal of Russian forces.

Talks are set to continue in the coming weeks, though no timeline has been announced for a potential meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump. Western diplomats caution that even a revised framework faces significant obstacles, given the scale of territorial disputes and the lack of direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow since 2022.

The war in Ukraine has entered its third year with front lines largely static but casualties continuing to mount. The United Nations estimates that millions have been displaced, and the conflict has had far-reaching effects on global food and energy markets.

For now, officials say the modified framework represents an ongoing attempt to keep diplomatic channels open — but with no guarantee of producing a breakthrough.

Source: Reuters – Exclusive: US peace plan for Ukraine drew from Russian document, sources say

The post U.S. Peace Plan for Ukraine Drew on Russian Proposal, Sources Say appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: October 9, 2025, 21:45 EDT

As the U.S. government shutdown extends into its ninth day, lawmakers on both sides express mounting frustration over stalled negotiations and a growing lack of trust between Congress and the White House. The standoff, rooted in disputes over health care funding and executive spending powers, has paralyzed Washington and raised concerns about the financial and political fallout if no resolution is reached soon.

Political Gridlock Paralyzes Washington

The ongoing shutdown has highlighted deep divisions in the U.S. government, with lawmakers struggling to find common ground. President Donald Trump continues to demand that Congress reopen the government before any talks on Democratic priorities, particularly health care subsidies, can begin.

Republican leaders have accused Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of bowing to pressure from his party’s progressive wing, suggesting that the shutdown is being used as political leverage ahead of upcoming elections.

Meanwhile, Democrats argue that negotiations cannot proceed without assurances that the administration will uphold its commitments once an agreement is reached. “To have good-faith conversations, you have to have trust. There’s a real challenge of trust,” said Representative Brad Schneider, chair of the New Democratic Coalition.

Trust Deficit Undermines Bipartisan Negotiations

Lawmakers from both parties have been meeting privately, hosting dinners and phone discussions in search of a breakthrough. Yet, progress remains elusive as mistrust overshadows every proposal.

“We’re in an environment where we need more than a handshake,” said Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware. His comment reflects broader doubts that any verbal commitment from the White House would hold once the government reopens.

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut echoed that concern, saying, “Donald Trump has no respect for law if he can push outside it, so I think we need some safeguards.”

Executive Overreach Adds to Tensions

Even before the shutdown began, conflicts had flared over presidential control of federal spending. The White House budget office had previously attempted to cancel billions of dollars in approved funding, including a $4.9 billion reduction in foreign aid—moves many lawmakers viewed as an overreach of executive authority.

Some Republicans have also expressed discomfort with the approach. “I hate rescissions, to be honest with you, unless they’re congressionally approved,” said Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

Matt Glassman, a fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, said the administration’s use of rescission powers “blew up the underlying dynamic of bargaining” by injecting partisanship into a process traditionally grounded in compromise.

White House Leverage Raises Legal and Political Questions

During the shutdown, White House budget director Russ Vought has argued that the president holds broad powers to delay or cancel pay for furloughed federal workers once funding is restored. He also confirmed that the administration was withholding infrastructure funds for states represented by Democratic senators who supported the shutdown.

President Trump defended the strategy as a response to what he called Democratic “obstruction,” sharing a social media post depicting himself as the “grim reaper.” On Capitol Hill, however, some Republicans have cautioned that such hardline tactics are hindering negotiations. “I think with senators, carrots work better than sticks,” said Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota.

Democrats Push for Health Care and Spending Safeguards

Democrats’ main demand in current talks is the extension of subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, alongside new legal safeguards preventing future unilateral rescissions of congressional funding.

Republicans have signaled potential openness to these measures once normal appropriations resume. “When you end the shutdown and get back to regular order, there’s clear language about how we feel about rescissions,” said Senator Mike Rounds, a Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I think you’ll find solid support from Republicans to ensure that what we agree to will be executed.”

Economic and Human Costs Mount as Shutdown Continues

The shutdown has left hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, with offices shuttered and paychecks delayed. Active-duty military personnel are expected to miss their next paycheck on October 15 if no deal is reached.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has urged Democrats to support a stopgap funding bill passed by House Republicans to keep the government open. “We want to make sure TSA agents, Border Patrol agents, the troops and everybody else gets paid,” Johnson said.

While some members of Congress have discussed passing partial funding bills to cover military pay, both parties appear determined to hold their positions, raising fears of long-term political and economic damage.

Outlook: No Easy Path to Resolution

As the shutdown enters its second week, few signs of compromise have emerged. Lawmakers acknowledge that rebuilding trust between Congress and the White House will be key to ending the impasse.

“I would not challenge Donald Trump’s resolve on this if I was anybody,” Senator Cramer warned, suggesting that the standoff could continue unless one side concedes.

For now, Washington remains gridlocked — with the nation’s workers, services, and economy caught in the middle of a deepening political stalemate.

Source: AP News – Frustrated lawmakers say lack of trust is making it harder to end the government shutdown

The post Government Shutdown Deepens as Lawmakers Cite Collapse of Trust in Bipartisan Talks appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: September 25, 2025, 15:00 EDT

The White House budget office has instructed federal agencies to prepare for possible mass layoffs if the government shuts down next week. In a directive released Wednesday evening, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said agencies must plan for reductions in force—permanent job cuts—rather than temporary furloughs, a step that would mark a significant departure from past shutdown practices.

The move comes as negotiations over government funding remain stalled, with Democrats opposing a Republican-backed short-term spending bill supported by President Donald Trump.

What the OMB Memo Says

According to the OMB guidance, federal programs that lose funding and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities” could see job eliminations rather than temporary suspensions. Unlike furloughs, which allow employees to return once funding is restored, a reduction in force eliminates positions outright.

The memo states that once a potential shutdown ends, agencies must adjust their staffing plans “as needed to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions.” The directive signals that even after funding is resolved, many federal employees could face lasting consequences.

OMB officials said they held an initial planning call with agency leaders earlier this week and requested updated “lapse plans” by August 1. Some agencies have already submitted plans, while others have yet to comply.

A Break from Past Shutdown Procedures

Historically, government shutdowns have resulted in temporary furloughs of nonessential workers, with employees returning to their posts once Congress restored funding. The latest OMB directive represents a more aggressive approach, raising the stakes for federal workers already impacted by recent rounds of cuts.

The Trump administration has previously pursued workforce reductions through the Department of Government Efficiency and related initiatives. If carried out, the new plan could represent one of the largest shake-ups in recent federal employment history.

Political Response from Democrats

Democratic leaders immediately denounced the OMB directive. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries dismissed the plan as intimidation, writing on social media platform X: “We will not be intimidated by your threat to engage in mass firings. Get lost.” He also labeled OMB Director Russ Vought a “malignant political hack.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed those concerns, calling the directive “an attempt at intimidation” and predicting that any mass firings would either be overturned in court or reversed by future hiring.

Both leaders have resisted Republican efforts to pass a “clean” funding bill that would extend government operations for seven weeks. Instead, Democrats are demanding immediate changes to health care policy, including an extension of enhanced insurance subsidies and the reversal of Medicaid cuts enacted in the GOP’s tax and spending legislation.

The Stakes in the Shutdown Debate

The standoff has placed significant pressure on Congress as the deadline approaches. If lawmakers fail to reach an agreement, large numbers of federal employees could lose not only their paychecks but their jobs altogether.

In its memo, OMB accused Democrats of holding up a funding bill “due to their partisan demands.” It also emphasized that the administration’s recent tax and border security package ensures that “many core Trump Administration priorities will continue uninterrupted,” even in the event of a shutdown.

By preparing for permanent job losses, the administration appears to be increasing political leverage in negotiations while signaling its willingness to reshape the federal workforce.

Broader Implications for Federal Workers

Federal employees have already faced major disruptions this year due to previous cuts. The possibility of reductions in force adds another layer of uncertainty. Unlike furloughed employees, those subject to a reduction in force may face a lengthy reapplication process or lose their federal service status altogether.

Labor experts warn that large-scale layoffs could affect not only federal workers but also the delivery of essential public services. Agencies tasked with health, safety, and security functions could face reduced staffing levels, even if “essential” roles are preserved.

What Comes Next

As the deadline looms, negotiations remain at an impasse. OMB has not posted public contingency plans on its website, a step prior administrations typically took during shutdown preparations. This lack of transparency has drawn criticism from lawmakers and watchdog groups.

The immediate future of the federal workforce depends heavily on whether congressional leaders can reach a funding agreement. With Democrats demanding health care reforms and Republicans pushing for a straightforward extension, the path forward remains uncertain.

For now, agencies are under pressure to finalize their staffing reduction plans, while federal employees await clarity on whether they face temporary furloughs or permanent job losses.

Source: AP News – White House budget office tells agencies to draft mass firing plans ahead of potential shutdown

The post White House Orders Agencies to Draft Mass Firing Plans Ahead of Possible Shutdown appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

July 25, 2025 – 9:16 AM

The House Ethics Committee has called on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to make additional payments related to her attendance at the 2021 Met Gala. The panel found that the New York congresswoman failed to pay full market value for goods and services tied to the high-profile event. The findings were part of a broader set of ethics updates, which also included reviews of Reps. Mike Kelly, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, and Henry Cuellar.

AOC’s 2021 Met Gala attendance under scrutiny

In a 31-page report released Friday, the House Ethics Committee concluded that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez violated House rules by not fully covering costs related to her participation in the 2021 Met Gala. The investigation found that although she attempted to comply with gift rules and paid for most items using personal funds, some payments were significantly delayed and did not meet fair market value.

Ocasio-Cortez, a guest of Vogue magazine, attended the event with her partner. The couple received complimentary tickets—each valued at $35,000—as well as customized attire, hair and makeup styling, and a hotel room. The Ethics Committee stated she had improperly accepted a free ticket for her guest and failed to reimburse the full cost of certain services.

In response, AOC’s chief of staff, Mike Casca, said the congresswoman “appreciates the Committee finding that she made efforts to ensure her compliance with House Rules” and that she will settle any remaining costs, “as she’s done at each step in this process.”

Mike Kelly formally reprimanded over stock dealings

The House Ethics Committee also issued a formal reproval of Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) following a lengthy inquiry into stock trades involving his wife. The panel reviewed allegations that Kelly may have shared nonpublic information with his spouse, enabling her to purchase stock in Cleveland-Cliffs, a steel company in his district.

Though the committee said it found no conclusive evidence that Kelly intentionally passed along insider information, it noted that his wife’s lack of cooperation limited their ability to fully assess the matter. The panel also found that Kelly did not treat the investigation with the seriousness it warranted, constituting a violation of the House’s official code of conduct.

The report recommended that Kelly and his wife divest any remaining stock in Cleveland-Cliffs before he engages in any further congressional actions affecting the company. The congressman responded by saying he was ready to “put this distraction behind us,” and emphasized his advocacy for the 1,400 workers at the company’s Butler Works plant.

Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick faces continued ethics inquiry

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) is also under renewed investigation. The Ethics Committee unanimously voted to reauthorize a probe into allegations that she solicited campaign donations in exchange for official actions and requested federal funding for a private, for-profit entity.

These allegations stem from a May referral by the Office of Congressional Ethics. The committee has not reached any conclusions, and Cherfilus-McCormick issued a statement affirming her cooperation with the inquiry.

“I fully respect the process and remain committed to cooperating with the Committee as it works to bring this inquiry to a close,” she said.

The Florida congresswoman has previously faced questions about the management of her campaign and congressional resources. Earlier this year, a Florida state agency sued a family-owned company linked to Cherfilus-McCormick, accusing it of overcharging the state by nearly $5.8 million during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Henry Cuellar investigation reauthorized amid federal indictment

In a separate matter, the House Ethics Committee has extended its ongoing investigation into Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who was indicted last year by the U.S. Justice Department on multiple federal charges including bribery, conspiracy, and money laundering.

While the committee emphasized that reauthorizing the investigation does not imply guilt, it acknowledged the “risks associated with dual investigations” when both legislative and judicial processes are ongoing.

Cuellar’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Texas Democrat has maintained his innocence since the indictment was announced.

A broader look at congressional accountability

The series of ethics developments reflects increased scrutiny of lawmakers across party lines and underscores the challenge of ensuring compliance with rules governing gifts, financial interests, and public trust. While no formal punishments have been announced for the lawmakers involved, the ongoing investigations may carry political consequences ahead of the 2026 election cycle.

The House Ethics Committee continues to serve as a key check on member conduct, especially as public confidence in government transparency and ethics remains a top concern for many voters.

Source: AP News  – House ethics panel tells Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to pay more for Met Gala attendance

The post Ethics panel urges AOC to pay more for Met Gala attendance appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

President Donald Trump’s sweeping new tax proposal is generating major buzz in Washington — and plenty of pushback. According to a fresh analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could blow a $2.4 trillion hole in the federal deficit over the next decade and leave nearly 11 million more Americans without health insurance by 2034.

The Numbers: Big Tax Cuts, Big Costs

The CBO’s report, released Wednesday, estimates that the legislation would slash taxes by $3.75 trillion over 10 years. But that relief comes at a steep price: a projected $2.4 trillion increase in the national deficit, even after nearly $1.3 trillion in federal spending cuts.

It also predicts that 10.9 million additional people would be uninsured by 2034, including 1.4 million undocumented immigrants currently covered under state-funded programs.

And that’s not all. The bill includes deep cuts to social safety net programs. Previous CBO estimates say about 4 million fewer people could receive food stamps each month due to proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Inside the “One Big Beautiful Bill”

Nicknamed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — a nod to Trump’s own phrase — the 1,000-page package is the GOP’s top legislative priority. Here’s what’s inside:

• Extended and expanded tax breaks, including a new provision exempting tips from taxation
• $350 billion boost in spending on border security, deportations, and national security
• New work requirements for some adults up to age 65 on Medicaid and SNAP, beginning in 2026
• Repeal of green energy tax breaks introduced under President Joe Biden
• A $4 trillion increase to the U.S. debt ceiling, now sitting at $36 trillion

Republicans argue the tax cuts will fuel economic growth, but the CBO remains skeptical, especially based on past performance.

White House Hits Back at the CBO

In anticipation of the report, the White House launched a preemptive strike against the CBO’s credibility. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the office’s projections as historically flawed, while Republican leaders echoed those doubts.

“They’ve always been wrong when it comes to forecasting economic growth,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), even suggesting the CBO might be obsolete. “It’s very valid to raise concerns,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune also took aim, arguing the CBO had underestimated revenue growth from Trump’s 2017 tax cuts — though the office attributes that miscalculation largely to inflation spikes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the criticism, the CBO remains a cornerstone of congressional budgeting. Established in 1974 to provide an impartial alternative to the White House’s budget office, it’s staffed by over 275 nonpartisan economists and analysts. Its current director, Phillip Swagel — a Republican appointee — was reappointed in 2023.

Democrats Cry Foul

Democrats are not mincing words. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, slammed the bill as reckless and hypocritical.

“Republicans cry crocodile tears over the debt when Democrats are in charge — but explode it when they’re in power,” Boyle said. Citing Elon Musk’s own rebuke of the bill, he added, “This bill is a ‘disgusting abomination.’”

A Race Against the Clock

Trump is urging Congress to pass the bill before the Fourth of July — a patriotic deadline for what he hopes will be a signature legislative win. But with critics on both sides raising alarm bells about its potential economic and human impact, the road to passage looks bumpy.

Stay tuned — this debate is far from over.

Source: AP News  – Trump tax bill will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit and leave 10.9 million more uninsured, CBO says

The post Trump’s Tax Bill: $2.4 Trillion in New Debt, 11 Million Uninsured—What Could Go Wrong? appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON — In a dramatic blow to House Republicans, a major tax-and-spending bill backed by former President Donald Trump was blocked Friday in the House Budget Committee, as five GOP lawmakers joined Democrats in voting it down.

The 1,116-page proposal—dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in tribute to Trump—was pitched as a sweeping effort to deliver tax breaks and spending cuts. But it now faces an uncertain path after a 16–21 vote derailed its momentum just days before a planned floor vote.

Conservative Rebellion Over Spending Cuts

The holdout Republicans—mostly hardline conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus—are demanding deeper cuts to Medicaid and the rollback of Biden-era green energy tax credits. They argue that without these changes, the bill would only worsen the country’s $36 trillion debt.

“This bill needs serious changes or you’re not getting my support,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of the conservative dissenters.

Other GOP lawmakers who voted against the bill included Reps. Ralph Norman (S.C.), Josh Brecheen (Okla.), Andrew Clyde (Ga.), and Lloyd Smucker (Pa.). Smucker changed his vote procedurally to allow a future revote, expressing optimism the bill could still be salvaged.

Despite Trump’s strong push—“Republicans MUST UNITE behind ‘THE ONE, BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!’” he posted on social media—the conservative resistance is holding firm.

SALT-Side Push from High-Tax States

Adding to the chaos, moderate Republicans from high-tax states like New York are insisting on a much bigger deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) than the bill currently allows. The proposal would triple the existing SALT cap from $10,000 to $30,000 for joint filers earning up to $400,000, but lawmakers like Rep. Nick LaLota are pushing for deductions of up to $124,000 for joint filers.

This internal GOP conflict—between conservatives demanding cuts and moderates seeking tax relief—has left House Speaker Mike Johnson scrambling to unite his party before Memorial Day.

What’s Inside the ‘Beautiful’ Bill

At its core, the bill would extend and expand on Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, with new features he campaigned on in 2024, such as:

• No taxes on tips, overtime pay, and certain auto loans
• A larger standard deduction of $32,000 for joint filers
• A temporary boost to the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500
• $350 billion in funding for immigration enforcement and Pentagon support

To pay for the plan—which would cost over $5 trillion—the bill proposes:

• Rolling back Biden’s green energy tax credits
• Slashing over $1 trillion from Medicaid and food assistance programs
• Imposing new work requirements: 80 hours/month for certain Medicaid recipients and expanded age criteria for SNAP (food stamp) work rules, affecting people ages 55 to 64

Impact on Americans and the Federal Budget

Democrats warn the cuts would devastate millions of low-income Americans.

“Millions will lose health care and food assistance while the wealthy enjoy massive tax breaks,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the panel. “That is bad economics. It is unconscionable.”

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill would result in:

• 7.6 million fewer people with health insurance
• 3 million fewer monthly recipients of SNAP

While Republicans claim the bill will pay for itself through economic growth, many outside analysts say it would significantly add to the national debt.

What’s Next

The Budget Committee is set to reconvene on Sunday, and GOP leaders are pushing for a vote on the House floor next week. But unless Republicans can bridge the gap between their warring factions, the fate of Trump’s prized tax bill remains in serious doubt.

Source: AP News – Conservatives block Trump’s big tax breaks bill in a stunning setback

The post Conservatives Block Trump’s Tax Bill in Surprise GOP Rebellion appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.