"We're taking father/son bonding to a whole new level."

That's how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday told social media users that it is lifting age limits for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) applicants—evidence, critics said, of the Trump administration's desperation to fill the ranks of federal agencies tasked with carrying out its cruel and illegal anti-immigrant policies.

In a move reminiscent of how the U.S. military attempted to stem flagging enlistment during the George W. Bush administration's so-called War on Terror by lowering recruitment standards to welcome felons, gang members, white supremacists, and high school dropouts, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Wednesday that "we are ENDING the age cap for ICE law enforcement."

Approved applicants will be joining an agency rife with human rights and legal abuses as it scrambles to satisfy alleged ICE arrest quotas and President Donald Trump's desire to carry out the biggest mass deportation campaign in the nation's history—a campaign of kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment and expulsion of innocent people, family separation, concentration camps, terrorization of American communities, alleged torture and sexual crimes, and many other outrages.

Noem told Fox & Friends Wednesday that in addition to lifting the 40-year-old age cap, ICE applicants can now be as young as 18.

"What could possibly go wrong?" independent journalist Tina Vasquez quipped on Bluesky.

Author Patrick S. Tomlinson wrote on X that "ICE opening up recruiting to teenagers because they can't find enough adults willing to be their racist storm troopers is some real dystopian s---."

Wednesday's announcement is the latest Trump administration effort to lure 10,000 new recruits, including by offering $50,000 sign-up bonuses and student loan repayment assistance—policies that can be paid for thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's historic funding for ICE.

Some critics pointed to a similar move to increase recruitment at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, where lower hiring standards resulted in increased reports of sexual misconduct and corruption among Border Patrol recruits.

"If they start waiving requirements there like they did for Border Patrol, you're going to have an exponential increase in officers that are shown the door after three years because there's some issue," former senior ICE official Jason Houser told The Associated Press last week.

Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate campaign, offered some friendly advice for those considering working for ICE: "Instead of joining the Gestapo, perhaps find a unionized workplace that's not involved in kidnapping instead."

NOW READ: The one big reason why most Republicans are acting irrationally — without consequences

Texas Democrats expressed defiance Sunday following Gov. Greg Abbott's threat to remove them from office for leaving the state to obstruct the passage of Republicans' extreme, Trump-backed gerrymandering plan.

"Come and take it," the Texas House Democratic Caucus said in a short statement after Abbott issued an open letter vowing to "remove the missing Democrats from membership in the Texas House" if they don't return by the time the body reconvenes late Monday afternoon.

Abbott cited a 2021 opinion authored by Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, with the Republican governor claiming it empowers him to expel the Democrats who left the state and "swiftly fill" resulting vacancies.

But the attorney general's opinion does not actually conclude that it's unconstitutional to break a quorum, saying only that "a district court may determine that a legislator has forfeited his or her office due to abandonment and can remove the legislator from office, thereby creating a vacancy."

In addition to threatening the Texas Democrats with expulsion on dubious grounds, Abbott alleged that any Democrats who have solicited or accepted donations while breaking quorum "may have violated bribery laws." The governor said he would use his "full extradition authority" to ensure the Democrats' return to Texas.

More than 50 Texas House Democrats left the state Sunday, many of them traveling to Illinois. At a press conference alongside some of the lawmakers, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker pledged to "protect every single one of them" in the face of Abbott's threats.

" Donald Trump is trying to cheat the system in Texas, but these Democratic legislators refuse to let it happen without a fight," Pritzker wrote on social media. "Their fight is our fight. I'm proud to stand side by side with them as they protect their constituents."

The proposed congressional map that congressional Republicans unveiled last week "packs voters of color into as few districts as possible in some areas and cracks them across several districts in others, effectively reducing the overall number of districts where Black and Latino voters are able to elect candidates of their choice," according to an analysis by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Democratic members of the U.S. Congress have voiced solidarity with the Texas lawmakers working to block the GOP gerrymandering scheme—and expressed hope that the effort will spark similar fights across the country.

"For folks watching at home that believe that voters should get to pick their politicians instead of Donald Trump picking their member of Congress, call your governor, call your state legislator, and tell them to fight back against what's happening in Texas," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus whose district would be impacted by the Republican gerrymandering plan.

"Donald Trump is trying to rig elections across the country," Casar added, "and those that care about democracy are fighting back—not just in Texas."

Rick Levy, president of the Texas AFL-CIO, similarly applauded Texas Democrats and said that "we need lawmakers at every level and in every state to fight to protect our rights, no matter what it takes."

"Texas may be the beginning of this redistricting battle," said Levy, "but workers across this country will win the war."

NOW READ: 'Fight fire with fire': New Republican push triggers a political arms race

The leadership of the European Union on Sunday struck a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump that will leave tariffs significantly higher for many of the bloc's exports—including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors—and at 50% for steel and aluminum.

News of the deal was met with sharp criticism, including from some European officials. François Bayrou, France's prime minister, wrote on social media that "it is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, gathered to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission."

Nick Dearden, director of the United Kingdom-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, warned that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen "has just handed Trump the biggest victory he could hope for."

"We will all pay the price because in the process, she has strengthened him and his fascist project. Deeply depressing," Dearden wrote, arguing that the deal "simply empowers the bully" and likely won't last.

In her statement announcing the agreement with Trump, von der Leyen suggested the deal would avert further escalations from the U.S. president and bring "stability" to markets unsettled by his erratic threats.

"Today with this deal, we are creating more predictability for our businesses," she said. "In these turbulent times, this is necessary for our companies to be able to plan and invest."

The sweeping 15% tariff on E.U. products entering the U.S. is half the rate that the president threatened to impose earlier this month, but it is far higher than the estimated 1.5% rate prior to Trump's second White House term. The E.U. is the United States' largest trading partner.

Cailin Birch, global economist at the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC that while the deal represents "a climb down from a much worse place," the 15% tariff "is still a big escalation from where we were pre-Trump 2.0."

Wolfgang Niedermark, a board member of the Federation of German Industries, called the deal "an inadequate compromise" that "will have a huge negative impact on Germany's export-oriented industry."

Trump and his team wasted no time bragging in bombastic terms about the agreement. Trump called it "probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade," while the president's deputy chief of staff gushed that it is "impossible to overstate what a staggering achievement President Trump delivered for America today."

"Stephen Miller is boasting about Trump hitting us with a HUGE tax increase," responded economist Dean Baker, alluding to the fact that tariffs are often passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.

As part of the agreement, the E.U. pledged to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy over three years—including LNG and oil.

Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, said in a statement Monday that "it's deeply shortsighted to see the E.U. strike a so-called 'deal' with the U.S. that locks us into expensive, polluting gas."

"Fossil gas is not only worse for the climate than coal, it comes at a higher cost," said Sieber. "This risks locking Europe into decades of fossil fuel dependence, volatile energy bills, and accelerating the wildfires and flooding already wreaking havoc across the continent. While Trump celebrates this as a win, communities on both sides of the Atlantic are suffering with deadly climate impacts."

NOW READ: 'Kicked a hornet’s nest': Backlash follows red state Republicans' repeal of voter-approved laws

A top Trump White House official who has incessantly bemoaned wasteful government spending has reportedly billed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau nearly $5 million for his security detail as he guts the agency's ability to fight for Americans scammed by predatory corporations.

Government Executive on Wednesday obtained a memo from the CFPB's deputy chief financial officer showing that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the consumer bureau "are entering into an interagency agreement to pay the costs" of Russell Vought's security.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Vought currently serves as both OMB director and acting director of the CFPB—a longtime target of Trump, congressional Republicans, and corporate forces.

"The memo spelled out that the agreement was 'on a fast track,' despite the funding not being included in the bureau's fiscal 2025 budget," Government Executive noted. "The $4.7 million will cover Vought's security through December, meaning it will draw from both fiscal years 2025 and 2026."

Earlier this year, Vought described the consumer agency's budget—around $820 million for 2025—as "excessive in the current fiscal environment." An OMB spokesperson did not respond when Government Executive asked why CFPB is footing Vought's security bill.

David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, wrote sardonically that Vought—who has helped turn the consumer bureau into a shell of its former self—is "finally getting things done that matter at CFPB."

"And when I say that, I mean his security detail," Dayen added. "At heart, these guys are all kleptocrats."

Don Moynihan, a professor at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, wrote that Vought is "simultaneously stopping CFPB from protecting American consumers from scams, while also charging it $5 million for his security team."

While the Trump administration's effort to dismantle the bureau entirely has been held up in court, Vought and Republicans in Congress have succeeded at slashing the consumer agency's budget and grinding its enforcement work to a halt. A pair of advocacy groups noted in a memo released in late May that the Vought-led CFPB has quietly dismissed more than 20 public enforcement actions against corporate wrongdoers.

Supporters of the CFPB, which was established in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, have described the agency as a "model of efficiency," touting the fact that it has returned tens of billions of dollars to consumers since its creation.

But that's done nothing to slow the Trump administration's assault on the bureau.

The Prospect's Maureen Tkacik and James Baratta wrote earlier this month that for close to half of 2025, the CFPB's roughly 1,500 staffers "have been locked out of their offices and agency computers, while attorneys and judges deliberate over the degree to which Trump's wrecking crew is legally allowed to assassinate the bureau."

"In the meantime, formal entries into the CFPB's consumer complaints database have soared, suggesting that the business of junk fees, predatory terms, and routine swindles is booming," the pair wrote. "All told, 2.5 million complaints have flooded into the CFPB over the past six months, roughly a quarter of the total complaints the agency has recorded since its inception in 2011, with reports of everything from being shut out of bank accounts after a hurricane to scammers impersonating ICE officials who convince consumers to buy them gift cards in order to help them avoid deportation."

"The ability to force financial scammers to return ill-gotten gains to millions of customers is an awesome authority in a political system that makes it so difficult to materially improve people's lives," they added, "so Vought has unsurprisingly dedicated special effort to destroying that power."

A report released earlier this week by the nonprofit Better Markets notes that the Trump administration's regulatory rollbacks at the CFPB have cost American consumers billions in savings and left them more vulnerable to corporate misconduct.

"The magnitude of the rollback and its costs for American consumers is staggering," said Brady Williams, legal counsel at Better Markets. "The Trump CFPB has aligned itself with industry interests, abandoning its mission to protect consumers."

The Writers Guild of America is calling on New York's attorney general to launch a bribery investigation into Paramount Global following the cancellation of "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert."

WGA, some of whose members worked on the CBS show, said in a statement that while "cancellations are part of the business," a "corporation terminating a show in bad faith due to explicit or implicit political pressure is dangerous and unacceptable in a democratic society."

"Paramount's decision comes against a backdrop of relentless attacks on a free press by President Trump, through lawsuits against CBS and ABC, threatened litigation of media organizations with critical coverage, and the unconscionable defunding of PBS and NPR," the union said.

WGA noted that the show's cancellation—which CBS insisted was a "purely financial" decision—came after Colbert criticized Paramount's $16 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump.

In a July 15 segment, aired 48 hours prior to his show's cancellation, Colbert called the settlement with Trump a "big, fat bribe" aimed at greasing federal approval of Paramount's pending merger with the entertainment company Skydance. Paramount owns CBS, and Paramount's controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, has reportedly been monitoring the network's coverage of the president.

The day of the Colbert segment, the CEO of Skydance met with Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr to discuss the pending merger.

In its statement, WGA urged New York Attorney General Letitia James to investigate "potential wrongdoing" at Paramount, which is headquartered in New York City.

"Given Paramount's recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that 'The Late Show' cancellation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump administration as the company looks for merger approval," the union said. "We call on our elected leaders to hold those responsible to account, to demand answers about why this beloved program was canceled, and to assure the public that Colbert and his writers were not censored due to their views or the whims of the president."

Ahead of the official settlement announcement, California's Senate launched an investigation into whether Paramount "violated state laws against bribery and unfair competition" by offering Trump $15 million to end the legal fight, Semafor reported.

After news of the settlement deal broke earlier this month, Democratic U.S. senators called for a federal investigation.

"With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement. "Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision Friday to eliminate its scientific research arm drew horrified responses from public health experts and climate advocates, who warned that the Trump administration is targeting the foundation of the department's work to shield Americans from hazardous chemicals, toxic pollution, and drinking water contaminants.

"This is grim news," said Adam Gaffney, an ICU doctor at the Cambridge Health Alliance. "For decades, the EPA's Office of Research and Development has produced the science that underlies the regulations and technologies that protect us from innumerable hazards."

"You can't put a number on the lives that it has saved. Now Trump and Zeldin are killing it," Gaffney added, referring to the president's handpicked EPA administrator.

Since taking charge at the EPA, Lee Zeldin has moved aggressively to implement President Donald Trump's executive orders aimed at gutting the agency's staff and freeing oil and gas corporations from regulatory restraints.

The agency will soon have 12,448 employees, after starting the year with more than 16,000. Staffers at the targeted research office—which had more than 800 employees as of earlier this week—reportedly learned of what one public health expert called "the ultimate Friday night purge" through the EPA's public press release.

In the statement, Zeldin said the elimination of the Office of Research and Development would help "ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment."

But scientists said the closure of the research office would have the opposite impact, leaving the agency's ability to protect the environment and public health badly compromised.

Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "it is absolutely devastating that Trump officials would shut down this office in its entirety."

"Science, data, and research underpin all of EPA's work, from protections from harmful chemicals to air quality standards to safe drinking water. It's hard to see how EPA can fulfill its mission without its scientific research arm," said Goldman. "The nation enjoys a cleaner environment thanks to the decades of high-quality research coming out of this office. Our nation cannot let this stand. Members of Congress must act."

In his public messaging, Zeldin has deemphasized the EPA's fundamental responsibility to protect the environment, instead casting the agency as a promoter of "energy dominance"—the slogan Trump administration officials have used to describe the president's commitment to boosting fossil fuel drilling.

Earlier this year, Zeldin boasted about launching "the biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history," targeting power plant rules, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and other regulations.

"Out in the open, Zeldin's EPA has been dismantling protections against precisely the sorts of dangers that right-wingers warn are coming from alleged deep-state conspiracies: toxic, cancer-causing chemicals that corporations have lobbied to freely inject into our air, water, food, and bodies," The New Republic's Kate Aronoff wrote in a recent column.

"Among the broader suite of regulations Zeldin's EPA has promised to roll back," Aronoff wrote, "is one that would require coal-fired power plant operators to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities, limiting their ability to freely discharge toxins like mercury, arsenic, selenium, lead, and bromide and to threaten local drinking water supplies."

NOW READ: 'Like an open fire hose': Trump ripped as cracks show in MAGA media

Next year, Americans who buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges are set to pay significantly more for coverage—and experts say policies advanced by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are at least partially to blame.

An analysis released Friday by the health policy research organization KFF and the Peterson Center on Healthcare found that across a sample of more than 105 ACA marketplace insurers in 19 states and the District of Columbia, companies are set to increase premiums by a median of 15%.

The analysis noted that insurers have cited a number of factors to justify pushing up premiums, including Trump's tariffs—which could drive up drug, equipment, and supply costs—and the expectation that the Republican-controlled Congress will not extend ACA tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year.

"If Congress takes no action to renew these enhanced tax credits, enhanced subsidies will expire at the end of 2025, which will cause premium payments for subsidized enrollees to increase by over 75% starting in January 2026," the analysis states. "Insurers expect a large share of enrollees to leave the market, and that those enrollees will be healthier on average, thus leaving the risk pool sicker on average."

While many health insurers submitted their rate-hike proposals prior to Republicans' passage of their sprawling budget reconciliation bill—which includes major attacks on the ACA and Medicaid—the measure could compel insurers to further raise premiums. Higher premiums would leave many more people unable to afford coverage.

The KFF-Peterson analysis also pointed to a Trump administration rule that imposes new restrictions on ACA enrollment.

"Early indications are that individual market insurers will be increasing premiums in 2026 by more than they have since 2018, the last time policy uncertainty contributed to sharp premium increases," the organizations said.

Vox's Dylan Scott noted that "the Republican bill's changes to Medicaid don't take effect until the end of 2026, but they could also push premiums higher if millions of people lose coverage as expected."

"When people lose Medicaid, they are more likely to end up in the emergency room," Scott explained. "That requires more costly care than they'd get if they were insured. Those increased costs to hospitals are passed on to insured patients when providers negotiate their payment rates with health insurance plans."

Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement Friday that "Donald Trump and Republicans handed a massive tax break to billionaires and paid for it by ripping over $1 trillion out of our healthcare system."

"Now hard-working families are stuck with the bill," said Woodhouse. "Premiums are soaring, uninsured rates are growing, hospitals are closing, and millions are being forced to choose between affording care or covering rent. But this was no accident. It was the plan: decimate American healthcare to line the pockets of the rich, and leave working families to suffer the consequences."

"The fallout is now hitting working families hard," he added, "as premium costs are driven to new heights."

NOW READ: Trump is imitating a notorious president he truly admires

Deadly flooding caused by torrential rain in central Texas late last week called attention to U.S. President Donald Trump's full-scale assault on the climate research and monitoring agencies tasked with studying and predicting such weather catastrophes, as well as his ongoing attacks on disaster preparedness and relief.

Though local National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters did issue warnings in the lead-up to Friday's flooding—which killed at least 82 people, including dozens of children—key roles were reportedly vacant ahead of the downpour, prompting scrutiny of the Trump administration's mass firings and budget cuts, in addition to years of neglect and failures by Republicans at the state level.

Asked whether he believes the federal government should hire back terminated meteorologists in the wake of the Texas flooding, Trump responded in the negative and falsely claimed that "very talented people" at NWS "didn't see" the disaster coming.

"This is an absolute lie," replied meteorologist and climate journalist Eric Holthaus. "Worse, this is the person responsible for making those kids less safe and he's trying to deny the damage he caused."

Holthaus wrote Sunday that Trump's staffing cuts "have particularly hit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Environmental Modeling Center, which aims to improve the skill of these types of difficult forecasts."

"Though it's unclear to what extent staffing shortages across the NWS complicated the advance notice that local officials had of an impending flooding disaster," he added, "it's clear that this was a complex, compound tragedy of a type that climate warming is making more frequent."

"Republicans have fired meteorologists, cut emergency disaster aid, and given an extra $18 billion to the fossil fuel corporations causing this crisis."

Under the guise of "government efficiency," the Trump administration has taken an axe to staff at federal climate agencies and is trying to go even further with its budget for the coming fiscal year. The Washington Post noted Sunday that "a budget document the Trump administration recently submitted to Congress calls for zeroing out climate research funding for 2026, something officials had hinted at in previous proposals but is now in lawmakers' hands."

"But even just the specter of President Donald Trump's budget proposals has prompted scientists to limit research activities in advance of further cuts," the Post noted. "Trump's efforts to freeze climate research spending and slash the government's scientific workforce have for months prompted warnings of rippling consequences in years ahead. For many climate scientists, the consequences are already here."

Since the start of his second term, Trump has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who were working on the National Climate Assessment, moved to slash NOAA's workforce, and announced a halt to climate disaster tracking, among other changes—all while working to accelerate fossil fuel extraction and use that is supercharging extreme weather events. One NOAA veteran warned that Trump's cuts could drag the agency back to "the technical and proficiency levels we had in the 1950s."

"The Trump regime is gutting scientific research into climate and atmospheric science for political reasons, at the very time we need a much better understanding of it," environmentalist Stephen Barlow wrote on social media on Sunday. "This is so reckless and dangerous, which is why I suggest we call these tragedies Trump events."

Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, said over the weekend that "Republicans have fired meteorologists, cut emergency disaster aid, and given an extra $18 billion to the fossil fuel corporations causing this crisis."

"These deaths are on Trump's hands," she added.

NOW READ: Photos: After Texas Hill Country flood, grief and recovery take hold

As the Republican reconciliation bill barrels toward final passage in Congress, the Trump White House is misrepresenting the measure's tax provisions in an attempt to paint the unpopular legislation as a boon for workers and ordinary seniors rather than a massive handout to the wealthiest Americans.

In an X post late Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that any lawmaker who opposes the 887-page bill is voting against "no tax on tips," "no tax on overtime," and "no tax on Social Security" benefits.

Leavitt's post was sufficiently misleading as to draw a "community note" on the Elon Musk-owned platform, which clarified that the Republican bill "does not fully eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, or Social Security as claimed; it offers limited deductions with caps (e.g., $25,000 for tips, $12,500 for overtime) and excludes high earners, with no provision to remove taxes on Social Security."

As Axios reported Thursday, the Republican legislation does include "an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older," but the benefit "leaves out the poorest seniors" and expires in 2028, when President Donald Trump is set to leave office.

The tax deductions for overtime and tips also expire in 2028.

That's unlike the major tax breaks for the wealthy that are included in the legislation, which extends soon-to-expire provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law. For example, the new Republican bill would permanently raise the estate tax exemption, allowing ultrawealthy individuals and married couples to give their heirs up to $15 million or $30 million without paying any federal taxes.

"A married couple worth $30 million where both spouses die in 2026 would pay some $6 million less under the bill compared with current law," The Wall Street Journal observed.

Brendan Duke, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that the GOP reconciliation bill's tax breaks for the richest 1% are roughly 10 times larger than the tax deductions for tips and overtime combined.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) noted in a recent analysis that the Senate-passed legislation also "includes permanent corporate tax breaks (involving more generous versions of tax rules for bonus depreciation, research, and limits on interest deductions) that lawmakers have attempted to enact in recent years."

Contrary to the Trump White House's characterization of the reconciliation bill as a historic "middle- and working-class tax cut," ITEP found that "the richest 1% of Americans would receive a total of $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026."

By contrast, according to ITEP, "the middle 20% of taxpayers on the income scale, a group that has 20 times the number of taxpayers as the richest 1%, would receive less than half that much, $53 billion in net tax cuts that year."

"The effects of President Trump's tariff policies alone offset most of the tax cuts for the bottom 80% of Americans," the group added. "For the bottom 40% of Americans, the tariffs impose a cost that is greater than the tax cuts they would receive under this legislation."

Survey data released Wednesday by Data for Progress shows that the Republican legislation is unpopular with a majority of likely U.S. voters. The new poll, conducted between June 27 and July 1, found that 62% of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about the bill's "cuts to income taxes on wealthy Americans."

The GOP budget legislation currently before the U.S. Senate would strip health coverage from 19 Americans for every millionaire household it gives a tax break, according to a report that Sen. Bernie Sanders released Wednesday as he worked to highlight and build public opposition to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party's draconian assault on the nation's social safety net.

The report integrates alarming testimony from healthcare providers who warn that the Republican legislation would have devastating impacts on their patients and the broader U.S. healthcare system—stripping insurance from millions, raising costs, and shuttering rural hospitals.

"If Medicaid is cut, my patients will die," Louisiana-based doctor Helen Pope told Sanders' team. "I realize I am being dramatic. It is a dramatic situation. They are humans who are doing their best. Please don't allow them to suffer more."

Farhan Malik, a pediatric critical care specialist based in Florida, echoed that warning, saying that "children will die as a result of these cuts."

"Hospitals will cut back on ICU doctors, doctors will leave because of salary cuts, critical ancillary services will be reduced, more medical students will avoid going into pediatric residencies," said Malik.

The report comes as Republican lawmakers continue to debate just how far they want to go with their proposed cuts to Medicaid, which—under both the House and Senate versions of their legislation—would be the largest in U.S. history.

Last week, Senate Republicans called for even more aggressive cuts than those approved by the House GOP, which voted in May for a plan that would kick roughly 11 million Americans off their health insurance—or 16 million when accounting for the party's refusal to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year.

Meanwhile, an estimated 800,000 millionaire households would receive a tax cut under the Republican legislation.

Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, has focused closely on the legislation's potentially catastrophic healthcare impacts. Earlier this month, a Sanders-commissioned report estimated that around 51,000 additional Americans would die unnecessarily each year if the Republican budget reconciliation bill becomes law.

In a statement on Wednesday, Sanders said his new report "makes it abundantly clear that the reconciliation bill that Republicans are attempting to ram through the Senate this week would be a death sentence for working-class and low-income Americans throughout the country."

"Not only would this disastrous and deeply immoral bill throw 16 million people off of their healthcare and lead to over 50,000 unnecessary deaths every year, it would create a national healthcare emergency in America," said Sanders. "It would devastate rural hospitals, community health centers, and nursing homes throughout our country and cause a massive spike in uninsured rates in red states and blue states alike."

"That's not Bernie Sanders talking," the senator added. "That is precisely what doctors, healthcare providers, and hospitals have told us."

Sanders' new report was accompanied by a breakdown of how much the uninsured rate would rise over the next decade if the House-passed reconciliation bill becomes law. At least 16 states would see their uninsured rates jump by more than 70% under the Republican bill.

"We cannot allow Republicans to take healthcare away from 16 million Americans in order to pay for more tax breaks to billionaires," Sanders said Wednesday. "As the ranking member of the HELP Committee, I will do everything that I can to see that it is defeated. Healthcare must be a human right for all, not a privilege for the wealthy few."

Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani prevailed in Tuesday's Democratic mayoral primary in New York City after running a grassroots campaign centered on delivering transformative change and lower costs in the expensive metropolis.

Disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who was backed by prominent national Democrats and an unprecedentedly deep-pocketed super PAC funded by billionaires and corporations, conceded defeat after it became clear that Mamdani's lead was insurmountable. With 93% of the votes tallied, Mamdani led Cuomo 43.5% to 36.4%.

Mamdani's primary win, a stunning upset, is expected to become official after the ranked-choice tally next week. In his victory speech, Mamdani said that his campaign and its supporters "made history."

"In the words of Nelson Mandela, 'It always seems impossible until it is done,'" he added. "My friends, we have done it."

Affordability was a key focus of Mamdani's policy platform and messaging, with the Democratic state assemblymember calling for an immediate rent freeze for all of the city's rent-stabilized tenants, the creation of a network of city-owned grocery stores focused not on profits but on "keeping prices low," and free childcare.

Mamdani proposed funding those and other priorities with a higher tax rate on corporations and city residents earning more than $1 million per year—fueling the backlash his campaign faced from the ultra-wealthy.

Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movement—whose local chapter knocked on over 20,000 doors for the race—said in a statement that "the people of New York City proved that a movement powered by hope, courage, and working people can beat the money of billionaires."

"This is what it looks like to take back power," said Shiney-Ajay. "Pundits, billionaires, and the political establishment said it couldn't be done. But this campaign shattered that belief."

Shiney-Ajay, like other progressives, argued that Mamdani's campaign should serve as a model for the rudderless Democratic Party as it tries to recover from its devastating loss to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party in last year's election.

"Zohran Mamdani is the future of the Democratic Party," said Shiney-Ajay. "This kind of campaign and vision is what the party needs to rebuild trust with young voters and working-class voters, so we can defeat Trump and his allies."

Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution—a national progressive advocacy group that endorsed Mamdani—said that the democratic socialist's win "has shaken the political establishment and proven that a united grassroots movement can take down even the most entrenched, powerful forces."

"This race was a showdown between the billionaire-backed status quo—which poured tens of millions into pro-Cuomo super PACs—and a new generation ready to crush corporate greed and deliver real results for working people," said Geevarghese. "The demand for people-powered change is loud, clear, and unstoppable."

While the winner of New York City's Democratic mayoral primary would typically be considered the heavy favorite going into the general election, "this fall's contest promises to be unusually volatile," The New York Timesobserved, noting that it will "include Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent."

Despite conceding defeat in Tuesday's primary, Cuomo left open the possibility of running as an independent in November.

"Mamdani faces an enormous responsibility—not only to his immediate constituency but also to a broader progressive movement."

Following his win, Mamdani supporters pointed to his broad support and successful coalition-building as reasons to be optimistic about his general-election prospects.

"The results make clear that his voting base wasn't limited to young, college-educated voters most engaged by his campaign," Bhaskar Sunkara, the president of The Nation and founding editor of Jacobin, wrote Wednesday. "Notably, Mamdani succeeded in neighborhoods like Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights, Sunset Park, and Brighton Beach—all areas that swung rightward in the 2024 presidential election."

"Mamdani has undoubtedly delivered a major victory in America's largest city," Sunkara added. "But we must be sober about the challenges ahead. Electoral wins are meaningful only if they translate into tangible improvements in people's lives, and political momentum can dissipate quickly if governance falls short. Mamdani faces an enormous responsibility—not only to his immediate constituency but also to a broader progressive movement watching closely from across the country and the world."

NOW READ: Kristi Noem's stupidity is an existential threat

Senate Republicans on Monday proposed cutting Medicaid even more aggressively than their House colleagues to help offset the cost of trillions of dollars in tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans.

The legislative text unveiled by the GOP-controlled Senate Finance Committee is a central component of the sprawling reconciliation package that Republicans are hoping to send to President Donald Trump's desk by next month.

The bill contains broader Medicaid work requirements than the House-passed legislation, expanding the ineffective and punitive mandates to low-income adults with children over the age of 14.

The Senate version would also sharply limit provider taxes that states use to fund their Medicaid programs. Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, warned the provision would "devastate" state finances, particularly where lawmakers have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

"This will create huge budget holes over time, some in as little as two years, forcing states to make severe, highly damaging cuts," Park wrote in an analysis of the new legislation.

"Senate Republicans have made this cruel, heartless bill even worse as they continue on their endless pursuit to destroy our healthcare system."

Senate Republicans released the bill text less than two weeks after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House-passed reconciliation package would strip healthcare from nearly 11 million Americans over the next decade—a number that rises to 16 million when accounting for the GOP's refusal to renew ACA tax credits set to expire at the end of the year.

Even more people would lose healthcare if Republicans adopt the Senate plan, analysts and advocates warned. One recent study estimated that around 51,000 additional people across the U.S. would die unnecessarily each year due to large-scale health insurance losses caused by the GOP's proposals.

"It shocks the conscience that Senate Republican leaders saw the impacts of the House bill—16 million more people uninsured and millions losing help buying groceries, including families with children—and chose to double down," said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Leslie Dach, chair of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "this bill was already a five-alarm fire for American healthcare, and Senate Republicans have just poured gasoline on it."

"Contrary to what they've repeatedly promised, Republicans are torching Medicaid, ripping apart the Affordable Care Act, and leaving 16 million people without the critical care they need, all so Trump and the GOP can funnel more money to their billionaire and corporate friends," said Dach. "Seniors will be thrown out of nursing homes, people fighting cancer will be cut off from treatment, and rural hospitals will shutter. Senate Republicans have made this cruel, heartless bill even worse as they continue on their endless pursuit to destroy our healthcare system."

If Senate Republicans adopt the proposed changes, the House would have to pass the reconciliation bill again before it can reach Trump's desk. One House Republican, granted anonymity by Politico, said "hell no" in response to the Senate language pertaining to Medicaid provider taxes, a signal that the proposal is likely to face intraparty opposition.

But experts stressed that both the House and Senate versions of the reconciliation bill would be disastrous for low-income Americans and a boon for the rich.

"Now that we've seen Senate text, we can say for certain: Either the House or the Senate version would be the largest transfer from the poor to the rich in a single law in history," wrote Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress.

"Each would kick millions of people off their health insurance and each would rip food assistance away from millions of households," Kogan noted. "Each would increase deficits by trillions of dollars while making the poorest Americans poorer and making the richest Americans richer."

U.S. President Donald Trump suggested Sunday that American forces "could get involved" in the intensifying military conflict that Israel started late last week with a barrage of attacks on Iran, prompting large-scale retaliatory strikes and grave warnings of a prolonged and catastrophic war.

Trump toldABC News senior political correspondent Rachel Scott that the U.S. is not currently involved in the conflict, which is false. The U.S. has helped Israel shoot down Iranian missiles, and American fighter jets are reportedly "patrolling the sky in the Middle East to protect personnel and installations." One Israeli official told the Jerusalem Post that "there was full and complete coordination with the Americans" on Israel's early Friday bombardment of Iran, which set off the conflict.

But Trump's remarks Sunday signaled the potential for a deeper U.S. role in the war, setting off alarm among lawmakers who have warned that such involvement would be illegal as well as disastrous.

"If President Trump intends to get the U.S. more involved in the war between Israel and Iran by attacking Iran, he must come to the Congress, make his case, and secure an authorization before he pulls our country into yet another war in the Middle East," said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) as Republican war hawks expressed support for U.S. intervention.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group, stressed Sunday that "any U.S. attack on Iran would almost certainly be illegal."

"Hope President Trump realizes that letting Netanyahu drag him into an unnecessary war will make him look weak," Finucane wrote on social media.

On Monday, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) unveiled a war powers resolution that would require congressional debate and a vote prior to any U.S. military action against Iran.

"It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States," said Kaine. "I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict."

"This war is bad for Israel, Iran, and the United States—which is likely to be sucked into the vortex unless it takes a decisive stand for peace."

As Israel and Iran exchanged strikes over the weekend, Axiosreported that the Netanyahu government "has asked the Trump administration... to join the war with Iran" because Israel "lacks the bunker buster bombs and large bomber aircraft needed to destroy Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment site, which is built into a mountain and deep underground."

"An Israeli official claimed to Axios that the U.S. might join the operation, and that President Trump even suggested he'd do so if necessary in a recent conversation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," the outlet added.

Iranian officials have said they view the U.S. as complicit in and largely responsible for Israel's assault, which—according to one human rights group—has killed more than 200 people so far. Iran's retaliatory missile and drone attacks on Israel have killed more than 20 people.

"The United States cannot play the role of an observer," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday. "It must either stop this aggression or accept the consequences of regional instability it has helped ignite."

Israel widened its assault on Iran on Sunday, with The Washington Postreporting that Israel's military targeted "Iranian energy production facilities, manufacturing plants, and aviation."

"Strikes hit airports, electronics manufacturing plants, police stations, an airplane maintenance site, and an office that coordinated Tehran's mosques," the newspaper reported. "Tehran residents also reported a number of explosions that appeared to target single vehicles in the city, stoking suspicion that targeted killings were being carried out with car bombs or small drone attacks."

U.S.-Iran nuclear talks that were scheduled for Sunday were called off, another indication that the ongoing Israeli attacks are sabotaging the prospect of a diplomatic agreement.

The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said Sunday that "death and destruction are mounting on both sides" and called on Trump to "use his leverage over Benjamin Netanyahu to stop the war."

"Absent this intervention, the death toll will rise, and more of each country will be left in ruins," the group said. "This war is bad for Israel, Iran, and the United States—which is likely to be sucked into the vortex unless it takes a decisive stand for peace."

"Israel started this war, and pressure must be on Israel to stop it," NIAC added. "Iran's foreign minister has also stated clearly that if Israel's attacks stop, so will Iranian retaliation. The path is open for Trump to end this bloody conflict. Any delay will lead to more death and suffering, and put diplomatic off-ramps further out of reach."

Congressional Republicans this week launched an investigation into more than 200 immigrant charity organizations, a move that Democratic lawmakers and the targeted groups condemned as an egregious effort to intimidate opponents of the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda.

"Terror is the point. Cruelty is the point. Fear is the point," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said Friday in response to the probe, which was announced earlier this week by top Republicans on the House Committee on Homeland Security (CHS).

"The actions of Republicans on CHS unlawfully target organizations standing against their authoritarian power grab," said Ramirez. "An attack on civil society is an attack on us all. We must dissent."

On Tuesday, Reps. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) sent letters to at least 215 organizations in a purported effort to "determine whether these NGOs used taxpayer dollars to facilitate illegal activity."

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Make the Road New York, Catholic Charities USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Haitian Bridge Alliance, and Global Refuge were among the organizations that received investigatory letters from the House Republicans.

"Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to inflict cruelty on migrants with their anti-immigrant agenda, but Americans want migrants treated fairly. This sham investigation is the opposite of that."

The letters give the targeted groups two weeks to respond to a survey that, according to the House Republicans, includes questions on "government grants, contracts, and disbursements they have received" and "any legal service, translation service, transportation, housing, sheltering, or any other form of assistance" they have provided to undocumented immigrants since January 2021.

A link to the survey is redacted in the GOP's letter to CHIRLA, an organization that was also targeted this week by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the group of providing "logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged" in Los Angeles protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

In a statement Wednesday, CHIRLA said that "we categorically reject any allegation that our work as an organization now and during the past 39 years providing services to immigrants and their families violates the law."

"Our mission is rooted in non-violent advocacy, community safety, and democratic values," the group continued. "We will not be intimidated for standing with immigrant communities and documenting the inhumane manner that our community is being targeted with the assault by the raids, the unconstitutional and illegal arrests, detentions, and the assault on our First Amendment rights."

A CHIRLA representative told the New York Post, a right-wing tabloid that first reported the House GOP investigation into the 215 charity groups, that the organization has "not participated, coordinated, or been part of the protests being registered in Los Angeles," apart from holding a rally last Thursday before the protests exploded.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security, issued a joint statement with Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) on Thursday condemning their Republican colleagues' investigation as "little more than a campaign to intimidate these groups so they'll stop the good work that our communities rely on."

"The fact that they sent demand letters to groups that have never received federal funding, and others that received money specifically provided by Congress to assist immigrants, shows how unserious their investigation is," Thompson and Thanedar said, adding that "most of the information they have requested is publicly available."

"More detailed records on the funding—including receipts—are owned by DHS, which their party controls. It raises the question—are they too lazy to pull this information themselves, or is the intent simply to bully groups they hate?" the Democrats continued. "Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to inflict cruelty on migrants with their anti-immigrant agenda, but Americans want migrants treated fairly. This sham investigation is the opposite of that."

NOW READ: Trump's reckoning is the final chapter of a horrifying old movie

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate voted Thursday to confirm scandal-plagued Billy Long to serve as head of the Internal Revenue Service, an agency that he sought to abolish during his tenure in Congress.

Every Republican senator voted in favor of confirming President Donald Trump's IRS commissioner pick in the face of revelations that he was closely involved in promoting a fraud-riddled tax credit and allegations that he could be implicated in two separate bribery schemes.

In a floor speech ahead of Thursday's vote, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said that Long is "knee-deep in tax scams, corruption, and cover-ups" that should disqualify him from leading the IRS.

Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, pointed to a letter he sent earlier this week to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles detailing his concerns about the FBI's apparently lax background check on Long.

"Publicly available information raises very troubling questions of personal wrongdoing that merit serious and thorough investigation," Wyden wrote. "According to court documents, Mr. Long is implicated in a bribery conspiracy involving a healthcare company located in his Missouri district while he was a member of Congress. The case resulted in convictions and guilty pleas of more than a dozen people, including elected officials, businessmen, and lobbyists."

Democratic lawmakers also raised alarm over "unusually timed" donations that seven companies made to Long's defunct 2022 Senate campaign committee following news that he was nominated to lead the IRS.

"This ought to be an easy no," Wyden said Thursday. "It's one corruption bombshell after another with former Congressman Billy Long."

"Billy Long has a clear history of working to make it easier for corporations and the wealthy to skirt paying their fair share of taxes."

While representing Missouri's 7th Congressional District in the U.S. House, Long co-sponsored legislation that proposed eliminating the IRS, repealing the federal income tax, and putting in place a regressive national sales tax.

Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), a progressive advocacy group, said Thursday that Long's confirmation "signals open season for wealthy tax cheats."

" Trump and Senate Republicans finally delivered a long-awaited return on investment to the billionaire backers that fund their party: an IRS chief with extreme views on tax policy and no interest in reining in wealthy tax cheats or helping working families," ATF executive director David Kass said in a statement. "With Long at the helm, it becomes even more critical to stop Trump's disastrous tax bill that cuts critical programs Americans depend on, like Medicaid and SNAP, to fund massive tax giveaways for billionaires."

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, similarly warned that "tax cheats just received a huge gift."

"Billy Long has a clear history of working to make it easier for corporations and the wealthy to skirt paying their fair share of taxes," said Gilbert. "He has even supported abolishing the very agency he has now been tasked to lead—the agency meant to take the lead in cracking down on tax evasion and ensuring that government is sufficiently resourced to serve the public interest."

"Wall Street may celebrate his confirmation as IRS commissioner," Gilbert added, "but it is bad news for everyday people."

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to respond with force to protesters who gather this coming weekend in opposition to his costly and authoritarian military parade in Washington, D.C., remarks that came amid growing fears that the administration is planning to mobilize troops across the country.

In his comments, Trump made no effort to distinguish between peaceful demonstrators and those who commit violence or property damage, telling reporters, "For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force."

"I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force," the president continued.

Under the banner of "No Kings," roughly 2,000 rallies have been planned across the United States on June 14 to protest Trump's birthday military parade and grave abuses of power, including his deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to crush demonstrations in Los Angeles.

Organizers opted against holding a "No Kings" rally in the U.S., saying that "real power isn't staged in Washington."

"Instead of allowing this birthday parade to be the center of gravity," they said, "we will make action everywhere else the story of America that day: people coming together in communities across the country to reject strongman politics and corruption."

Leaders of the rallies have stressed their commitment to nonviolence, saying in a statement this past weekend that "organizers are trained in de-escalation and are working closely with local partners to ensure peaceful and powerful actions nationwide."

Public Citizen, a "No Kings" partner organization, was among those responding with alarm to Trump's remarks on Tuesday.

"That's a dictator," the group wrote on social media.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes wrote that it's "worth stressing that he's not threatening rioters or people who are violent or lawless but literally just 'protesters' with 'very big force.'"

"My strong instinct is that Trump's threats against Americans' First Amendment right to peaceably assemble are going to massively juice attendance at Saturday's protests," Hayes added.

A map of rallies planned across the U.S. can be found here.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, one of the House lawmakers most vulnerable to losing their seats in the 2026 midterms, was the target of a new ad that aired Tuesday as part of a nationwide campaign to draw public attention and outrage to the GOP plan to kick millions off Medicaid.

The ad—set to run on television, digital platforms, and streaming services in Nebraska—features a woman named Audrey, who says her step-daughter and three grandchildren are among the tens of millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid for health coverage.

"It's important that we continue to have Medicaid—it's lifesaving," Audrey says in the 30-second spot. "But Congressman Don Bacon doesn't act like it. He's actually cutting Medicaid so he can give tax breaks to big corporations and billionaires."

"Our grandkids rely on Medicaid," she continues. "It's important that they have that. Otherwise, they would not have access to healthcare, immunizations, and everything else. It's very important to us. It's not something you should take away to fund tax breaks for billionaires."

Watch:

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Late last month, Bacon joined most of the House Republican caucus in voting to pass a 1,100-page budget reconciliation package that includes more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade and work reporting requirements that analysts say would strip insurance from as many as 14 million people in communities nationwide.

Weeks before casting his vote in favor of the legislation, Bacon said he wouldn't accept more than $500 billion in Medicaid cuts.

Kobie Christian of the Unrig Our Economy coalition, which is behind the nationwide ad campaign, said Tuesday that "Nebraska families like Audrey's have been struggling to afford healthcare for years, and Congressman Bacon decided it was a good idea to vote for the largest cut to Medicaid in American history that will leave millions without the healthcare they need."

"Congressman Bacon didn't just vote to rip away healthcare from children and families," Christian added. "He voted to hand that money to millionaires and billionaires. Congressman Bacon had a choice—and he chose billionaires over working families like Audrey's."

"It's that simple: If they are a 'no' on Medicaid cuts, then they can't support any version of the current reconciliation bill that slashes healthcare for millions of Americans."

The Republican budget bill is currently before the GOP-controlled Senate, which is expected to make significant changes before sending the legislation back to the House for final passage.

But it's far from clear that Republican senators will weaken the measure's deeply unpopular assault on Medicaid.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has voiced concerns about his colleagues' push for aggressive cuts to the program, wrote in a social media post on Monday that he had a "great talk" with President Donald Trump about the issue."

"He said again, NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS," Hawley wrote.

But the Missouri senator has expressed support for Medicaid work requirements, which experts say are cruel and ineffective at achieving the GOP's stated goal of boosting employment among beneficiaries. Most Medicaid recipients already work, and the frequent reporting requirements included in the Republican legislation would, according to analysts, compromise health coverage for millions of people who are eligible for benefits.

"Let's see if Senator Hawley, President Trump, and the other Republican senators who've shunned Medicaid cuts practice what they preach," Tony Carrk, executive director of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement Tuesday. "It's that simple: If they are a 'no' on Medicaid cuts, then they can't support any version of the current reconciliation bill that slashes healthcare for millions of Americans."

Billionaire Elon Musk announced late Wednesday that he is leaving the Trump administration after spearheading a monthslong, lawless rampage through the government that hollowed out entire agencies, hurled critical functions such as the distribution of Social Security benefits into chaos, and installed many unqualified lackeys whose work will continue in the coming months and years.

Musk's announcement came just ahead of the official May 30 deadline for his departure as a special government employee. That designation allowed the world's richest man to play a key role in the Trump White House without facing Senate confirmation or the full slate of ethics rules that apply to ordinary federal officials.

"As my scheduled time as a special government employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President [Donald Trump] for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending," Musk wrote on his social media platform, X. "The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government."

While Musk came nowhere close to his initially stated goal of slashing $2 trillion in federal spending, his team's infiltration and efforts to gut federal agencies inflicted lasting damage, progressive lawmakers and watchdog groups said in response to news of his departure.

"DOGE is not a way of life, it's a mantra of destruction," said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. "The legacy of Elon Musk is lost livelihoods for critical government employees, hindered American education, loss of funding for scientists, and the violation of Americans' personal privacy, all in the service of corrupt tech-bro billionaire special interests."

"The carnage is even more horrifying internationally, as Musk's chainsaw will lead to the pointless and needless deaths of likely millions of people in the developing world," Gilbert added. "This is a legacy of carnage and corruption that will haunt us for many years to come."

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Musk's exit a win for "the anti-corruption, anti-billionaire movement in American politics" but warned that the Tesla and SpaceX CEO's "likely goal is to continue exercising corrupt influence—just from behind a curtain, as billionaires too often do."

"We will have to keep up the pressure, scrutiny, and eventually formal oversight until we finally take back our government from Musk and the entire billionaire class," Casar said.

Next week, the Trump White House plans to send to the Republican-controlled Congress a $9.4 billion rescission package that, if passed, would codify some of the spending cuts pursued by Musk's team. Politico reported that the package "will target NPR and PBS, as well as foreign aid agencies that have already been gutted by the Trump administration."

The impact of DOGE-led attacks on federal agencies and Trump's withholding of hundreds of billions of dollars of congressionally approved spending will persist long after Musk's exit.

Reuters highlighted one example last week, reporting that "Head Start preschool programs for low-income U.S. children are scrambling to cope with funding cuts and delays, as they feel the squeeze of President Donald Trump's cost-cutting drive."

"Adding to the strain," the outlet noted, "Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency released $943 million less in congressionally approved funding for distribution through April 15 compared with the previous year."

Senate Democrats on Wednesday launched an investigation into the Trump administration's effort to give political appointees the maximum allowable salary while it fires career civil servants en masse, dismantles entire federal agencies, and works in concert with Republican lawmakers to gut safety net programs.

In a letter to Trump's Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and seven other Democratic senators raised alarm over an April 10 OPM memo that removed career human resources officials from appointment and salary processes and urged federal agency heads to pay policy-setting Schedule C appointees the max salary of $195,200 per year.

"This memo, coupled with the administration's widespread layoffs of career government workers who have loyally served in the executive branch for presidents of both political parties, makes clear your intention: fire dedicated public servants in droves, cut essential government services, and use taxpayer dollars to instead hire underqualified and overpaid political cronies," the senators wrote to Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell.

"Schedule C hires are not career civil servants. They will not be answering phones at Social Security field offices or conducting food inspections or fighting wildfires," the lawmakers continued. "They do not work for the American people; they work to advance the political agenda of the president. OPM's April 10 memo makes clear the Trump administration's ultimate goal is to decimate the nonpolitical career civil service and use taxpayer dollars to enrich and reward political allies, all at the cost of the government services that people rely on."

"Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars and massively wasteful," they added.

"Your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate."

The Senate Democrats demanded that Ezell provide them with salary information for political appointees and job descriptions for those hired at the maximum salary level of $195,200, which the lawmakers noted is roughly five times the median income for a single individual in the United States.

"While this administration pushes out scores of public servants and guts entire agencies, often in defiance of Congress and federal law," the Democrats wrote, "your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate."

Following the release of OPM's memo last month, Government Executive observed that "traditionally, while the selection of Schedule C appointees is typically the job of the White House or an agency's White House liaison, career HR employees evaluate an incoming appointee's resume and experience, ensure they are properly vetted, and provide input about the appointee's proposed starting salary."

By removing career HR officials from the appointment process, the memo "appears aimed at expediting the replacement of career workers with political appointees," the outlet reported—advancing a top goal of the Trump administration and its far-right allies.

NOW READ:'The most on-brand thing': Nancy Mace blasted after new bombshell revelation

U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday bragged to West Point's graduating class that he has refused to cut Pentagon spending and touted his push for an annual military budget of $1 trillion, arguing that other programs should be on the chopping block instead.

"Some people say, 'Could you cut it back?' I said, 'I'm not cutting 10 cents,'" the president said of Pentagon spending during his bizarre, campaign-style commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy.

"We can cut plenty of other things," Trump added, without specifying what he sees as better targets for cuts than the Pentagon, a sprawling morass of waste and abuse that recently failed its seventh consecutive audit.

Trump's remarks came after House Republicans, with his support, passed a massive budget reconciliation package that includes more than $100 billion in additional spending for the U.S. military and around $1 trillion in combined cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The military spending boost, which critics slammed as unnecessary and detrimental, is aimed at promoting Trump priorities such as his proposed "Golden Dome," an idea that experts have dismissed as a "fantasy." It is also a major opportunity for profiteering: Reutersreported last month that Elon Musk's SpaceX has emerged as one of the frontrunners to build a "crucial part" of the system.

With the $1 trillion that Trump is seeking to allocate to the military in the coming fiscal year, the U.S. could erase all medical debt, slash child poverty, end homelessness, tackle the nation's nursing and teacher shortages, replace all of the country's lead pipes, and build nationwide high-speed rail, according to an analysis by the National Priorities Project (NPP).

"A trillion-dollar investment in ordinary Americans is not radical; it would effectively help prevent crime, improve security, and raise standards of living across the country. And it's what most people actually want," wrote NPP research analyst Hanna Homestead. "Poll after poll shows Americans would rather have their tax dollars spent on public services than on Pentagon contractors, and would prefer policymakers prioritize spending on healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure—not the military."

NOW READ: Trump wants us explode in violent outrage — here's why

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has pledged to do his part in making the Trump administration the most transparent in history, issued a memo Friday imposing tight restrictions on reporters' movements at the Pentagon in an apparent bid to crack down on leaks.

Under the new policy, which takes effect immediately, journalists are prohibited from entering many locations across the Pentagon building unless they're accompanied by Trump administration personnel—restrictions that Hegseth claims are necessary to protect national security.

"If press require access to other areas/offices within the Pentagon for 'in-person' interviews (or other engagements), they are required to be formally escorted to and from those respective offices by authorized DoD personnel from those specific offices/Agencies/Military Departments," Hegseth's two-page memo states.

Reporters covering the Pentagon will also be "required to complete an updated in-briefing form explaining their responsibilities to protect" classified and "sensitive" information.

"Failure by any member of the resident or visiting press to comply with these control measures will result in further restrictions and possibly revocation of press credentials," reads the memo.

"The Pentagon is making it harder for journalists to do their jobs and easier for power to go unchecked."

The restrictions come in the wake of several scandals that have personally implicated Hegseth, including the revelation that he used a private group chat that included members of his family and his personal attorney to discuss plans for a U.S. attack on Yemen. They also come amid a broader Trump administration assault on press freedom.

The Pentagon Press Association (PPA), which represents journalists covering the U.S. military, said in a statement that Hegseth's memo "appears to be a direct attack on the freedom of the press and America's right to know what the military is doing."

Kevin Baron, a founding officer of the PPA, said he is "angry and frustrated—but not surprised—that MAGA propaganda-loving conspiracy theorists like SecDef Hegseth and his team have dropped this JDAM-sized attack on the press."

"It's un-American," Baron added. "It's dangerous."

National Press Club president Mike Balsamo echoed the PPA's criticism of the new policy, which he said represents a "stark departure from longstanding norms that balanced operational security with meaningful press access."

"By blocking access to common areas, restricting movement without escorts, and complicating basic reporting functions," said Balsamo, "the Pentagon is making it harder for journalists to do their jobs and easier for power to go unchecked."

Hegseth announced the press policy changes as the U.S. military is poised to receive a $1 trillion budget for the coming fiscal year despite mountains of evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of military contractors. Late last year, the Pentagon failed its seventh consecutive audit.

The American military is involved in conflicts around the world, and the Trump administration—with Hegseth's vocal support—has eased restrictions on U.S. airstrikes and raids outside of "conventional war zones."

Protesters are planning to gather outside U.S. President Donald Trump's Virginia golf club Thursday night as the Republican leader dines inside with the top 220 investors in his meme coin, an event that watchdogs and ethics experts have described as astonishingly corrupt.

The investors, including Chinese crypto billionaire Justin Sun and other moguls, spent nearly $400 million combined to obtain access to the president, who has openly solicited purchases of the crypto token $TRUMP. The top 25 investors in Trump's meme coin, most of whom are anonymous, are slated to receive a VIP White House tour on Friday.

Bitcoin, which Trump once derided as a "scam," surged to a new all-time high ahead of the dinner.

"This dinner is corruption embodied," progressive organizers said ahead of the protests. "Offering special access to the president in exchange for a scheme that enriches the president borders on bribery. America is not for sale!"

"Never has there been a more shameless case of a U.S. president using their power and influence to line their own pockets."

Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported Thursday that there will be no livestream of the dinner, and video gear will not be allowed.

In a social media post earlier this week, Sun—who was facing a Securities and Exchange Commission fraud case before the Trump administration halted it in February—wrote that he is "grateful for the invitation" to the dinner and "excited to connect with everyone, talk crypto, and discuss the future of our industry."

Norm Eisen, co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said Thursday that Trump "might as well put up a for sale sign on the White House lawn"—a sentiment that others echoed ahead of the dinner.

"We already know an accused Chinese billionaire fraudster is the #1 holder of $TRUMP coin," said Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US. "If the Trump family refuses to be transparent about who all these top $TRUMP holders are, it raises serious questions about the hidden agendas at play that could cost the American people or threaten our national security."

"Never has there been a more shameless case of a U.S. president using their power and influence to line their own pockets," Carrk added. "While the president wines and dines wealthy insiders from around the world, American working people are pushed further back in line, bracing for higher costs under Trump's regressive tariffs and budget plan."

NOW READ: 'Trump's tactics are in fact communist': Former Tea Party congressman busts MAGA for what it is

Public education and First Amendment advocates on Thursday celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to allow the nation's first religious public charter school in Oklahoma—even though the outcome of this case doesn't rule out the possibility of another attempt to establish such an institution.

"Requiring states to allow religious public schools would dismantle religious freedom and public education as we know it," Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement about the 4-4 decison. "Today, a core American constitutional value remains in place: Public schools must remain secular and welcome all students, regardless of faith."

Wang's group and other partners had filed a lawsuit over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School on behalf of parents, faith leaders, and public school advocates. Her colleague Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, declared Thursday that "the very idea of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron."

The new one-page opinion states that "the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court," which means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's June 2024 ruling against St. Isidore remains in place. There are nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett—who is part of its right-wing supermajority—recused herself from this case.

"While Justice Barrett did not provide an explanation for her recusal, it may be because she is close friends with Nicole Stelle Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School who was an early adviser for St. Isidore," The New York Timesnoted. "Although justices sometimes provide reasons when they recuse themselves, they are not required to do so."

Law Dork's Chris Geidner warned that "a new challenge not requiring her recusal could easily return to the court in short order—especially now that the court has shown its interest in taking on the issue."

In this case, as Common Dreams reported during oral arguments last month, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to be the deciding vote. Geidner pointed out Thursday that while it seems most likely that he sided with the three liberals, "even that could have been as much of a vote to put off a decision as a substantive ruling on the matter."

Some groups happy with the outcome in this case also highlighted that the battle is expected to continue.

"This is a crucial, if narrow, win for constitutional principles," Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. "A publicly funded religious charter school would have obliterated the wall of separation between state and church. We're relieved that, at least for now, the First Amendment still means what it says."

"The fight isn't over," Gaylor added. "The forces trying to undermine our public schools and constitutional freedoms are already regrouping. FFRF will continue to defend secular education and the rights of all Americans to be free from government-imposed religion."

A key teachers union also weighed in. The American Federation of Teachers had filed an amicus brief in the case and its president, Randi Weingarten, welcomed that the high court on Thursday let stand the Oklahoma decision, "which correctly upheld the separation of church and state and backed the founders' intention to place religious pluralism over sectarianism."

"We are grateful that it upheld the state's highest court's clear and unambiguous ruling to preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations," Weingarten said in a statement. "We respect and honor religious education. It should be separate from public schooling."

"Public schools, including public charter schools, are funded by taxpayer dollars because they are dedicated to helping all—not just some—children have a shot at success," she stressed. "They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open, and accessible to all."

NOW READ: 'Trump's tactics are in fact communist': Former Tea Party congressman busts MAGA for what it is

Senate Republicans late Wednesday made use of arcane procedural maneuvers to bypass the chamber's 60-vote filibuster and move ahead with a measure to overturn federal waivers that allowed California to set tougher vehicle pollution standards.

The 51-46 party-line vote came after the Senate parliamentarian, the unelected arbiter of the chamber's procedures, said that the Environmental Protection Agency waivers issued at the tail-end of the Biden administration did not qualify as federal rules for the purpose of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

The CRA gives lawmakers a limited window to overturn federal rules, and resolutions brought under the law are not subject to the Senate filibuster. The Republican-controlled House voted earlier this month to repeal the California waivers with a CRA resolution, paving the way for Senate action.

On Wednesday, Senate Republicans engaged in a procedural gambit that allowed them to skirt the filibuster while claiming they did not vote to overrule the parliamentarian. As The New York Times explained, Republicans "argued that the situation was 'novel'... allowing the Senate to establish its own course of action since no exact precedents existed."

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen, warned in a statement that the GOP move sets a dangerous precedent, potentially laying the groundwork for Republicans to bypass parliamentarian rulings on provisions of the sprawling reconciliation package that the House passed Thursday morning.

"Tonight they voted to disregard clear legal requirements in their own statutes and rulebook, jettison the judgment of the Senate's referees, and sow long-term chaos so they could pass a brazenly corrupt handout to Big Polluters," said Gilbert. "It's outrageous, dangerous, and reckless in the extreme."

"Senate Republicans have now set the stage to potentially do the same thing in service of adding nongermane, devastating policy provisions to their horrific reconciliation bill of tax handouts for the wealthy and cuts to our social safety net," Gilbert added.

NOW READ: 'Trump's tactics are in fact communist': Former Tea Party congressman busts MAGA for what it is

House Republicans on Thursday morning passed their sprawling budget reconciliation package after making last-minute changes to the legislation to mollify far-right hardliners.

The final count was 215-214, with every Democrat voting no and Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.)—chairman of the House Freedom Caucus—voting present. The bill runs over 1,100 pages.

Earlier Thursday, the House voted to begin floor debate on the legislation after the GOP-controlled rules panel approved a slew of amendments to the bill, including a change that would move up the start date of draconian Medicaid work requirements to December 31, 2026—resulting in even bigger cuts to the program and more people losing coverage. Under an earlier version of the legislation, the work requirements would have taken effect at the start of 2029.

The updated bill would also "give states a financial incentive not to expand" Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act "to people with higher incomes than traditional enrollees, though still near the poverty line," Politicoreported.

If enacted, the House GOP's legislation would slash roughly $1 trillion combined from Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), potentially stripping health coverage and food aid from tens of millions of low-income Americans to help fund trillions of dollars in tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest.

The bill would also trigger cuts to Medicare.

A Congressional Budget Office analysis released earlier this week showed that U.S. households in the bottom 10% of the income distribution would be worse off if the House Republican bill became law, while the top 10% would end up wealthier.

"Let's call this what it is—theft," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the House Rules Committee. "Stealing from those with the least to give to those with the most. It's not just bad policy, it's a betrayal of the American people."

Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) said in floor remarks just after midnight Thursday that "at least here tonight, the people stealing from Americans are not folks with tattoos and hoodies—it's people wearing suits and ties and congressional pins, sitting in this Capitol right now."

"Not in some random alley wrapped in darkness," Frost added as Republican lawmakers booed, "but in the United States Congress wrapped in the flag. It is disgusting, and we will never forget this."

One GOP lawmaker, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, blasted his party for advancing the legislation while most Americans were asleep.

"If something is beautiful, you don't do it after midnight," said Massie, alluding to the official title of the legislation—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Republican lawmakers teed up the final House vote after days of marathon hearings, jockeying behind closed doors, and private meetings with President Donald Trump, who pressured far-right Republicans to drop their objections and fall in line.

The legislation still must clear the Republican-controlled Senate, which is expected to make significant changes.

The sprawling reconciliation package that House Republicans are rushing through committee would trigger over $500 billion in automatic cuts to Medicare, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate released late Tuesday.

The CBO analysis, requested by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), came just hours before Republicans convened a dead-of-night House Rules Committee hearing on the budget legislation as they scramble to meet their Memorial Day deadline.

If enacted, the Republican bill would add trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade by delivering another round of tax cuts skewed to the rich, partially offset by huge cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

According to the CBO, the bill's addition to the deficit would trigger a process known as sequestration under the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010, a law long reviled by progressives that requires spending cuts equal to legislation's average deficit impact.

Unless lawmakers offset the deficit impact of the Republican bill or agree to waive the PAYGO requirements—which the GOP measure does not do—the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "would be required to issue a sequestration order not more than 14 days after the end of the current session of Congress (excluding weekends and holidays) to reduce spending by $230 billion in fiscal year 2026," the CBO said.

"The deficit will explode so badly it will trigger automatic cuts, including over half a trillion dollars from Medicare."

Under PAYGO, automatic Medicare cuts are capped at 4%. The CBO estimates that the Republican legislation would trigger roughly $45 billion in Medicare cuts in 2026 and a total of $490 billion in cuts to the program between 2027 and 2034.

"This Republican budget bill is one of the most expensive—and dangerous—bills Congress has seen in decades," said Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "The nonpartisan CBO makes it clear: The deficit will explode so badly it will trigger automatic cuts, including over half a trillion dollars from Medicare."

"This is what Republicans do—pay for massive tax breaks for billionaires by going after programs families rely on the most: Medicaid, food assistance, and now Medicare," Boyle added. "It's reckless, dishonest, and deeply harmful to the middle class."

Boyle highlighted the CBO's findings during his testimony at the House Rules Committee hearing, which began in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

"This is really the breaking news," Boyle said. "Over the last several months, there's been no discussion of Medicare at all. There has been of Medicaid, but not of Medicare."

"Because of the size of the deficits, because of the PAYGO or Pay-As-You-Go Act, that would trigger sequestration of Medicare, and it would total over $500 billion," Boyle continued. "The official figure that CBO confirms is $535 billion in cuts to Medicare."

Boyle and other Democrats said the looming Medicare cuts amount to a betrayal of President Donald Trump's vow to shield the program—a promise that was included in the GOP's 2024 election platform.

"They're not just cutting Medicaid," said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), referring to the reconciliation bill's roughly $600 billion in proposed cuts to the healthcare program for low-income Americans. "They're cutting Medicare too."

House Budget Committee Democrats wrote on social media that "Trump promised to protect Medicare."

"He lied," they added.

NOW READ: Inside MAGA's real motive for trying to destroy America

U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly used a closed-door meeting with House Republicans Tuesday to instruct them not to "f--- around with Medicaid" as the party rushes ahead with legislation that proposes the largest Medicaid cuts in American history.

Trump's remarks indicate he's either unaware of the specifics of the "big, beautiful bill" that he has championed or doesn't mind the unprecedented Medicaid cuts that are currently in the text—but doesn't want them to go any further.

Republican hardliners are actively pushing to cut the key healthcare program even more aggressively, including by moving up the start date for work requirements and slashing federal payments to states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

"Don't f--- around with Medicaid," Trump said during the private meeting with House Republicans, Politico reported, citing two unnamed GOP lawmakers.

"Working people have been speaking out and urging their members of Congress not to 'f--- around with Medicaid' for months now."

In its current form, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates, the House GOP reconciliation bill would slash Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade and remove at least 10 million people from the program—likely with deadly consequences. (KFF, a health policy research group, provides a detailed summary of the bill's Medicaid provisions here.)

The legislation also includes nearly $4 trillion in tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans.

Kobie Christian, a spokesperson for the Unrig Our Economy coalition, said in response to Trump's private comments that "working people have been speaking out and urging their members of Congress not to 'f--- around with Medicaid' for months now."

"With a floor vote on the horizon, will House Republicans f--- around with Medicaid to give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies?" Or will they finally listen?" Christian asked. "All eyes are on them this week."

Trump's meeting with House Republicans came hours before the chamber's GOP-controlled rules panel is set to convene for a dead-of-night hearing on the reconciliation package.

The 1 am ET meeting was scheduled shortly after Republicans on the House Budget Committee cut a deal to deepen the legislation's cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

According to a new CBO analysis, the House Republican measure would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by more than a third by 2034.

"This would rip food assistance away from millions of people, including households with children as young as 7 years old," said Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress.

NOW READ: Donald Trump may be doing the world a big favor

Republicans pushed their massive reconciliation bill through the House Budget Committee late Sunday after striking a deal with GOP hardliners who tanked a vote on the package late last week, complaining that the measure's proposed cuts to Medicaid and other programs were not sufficiently aggressive.

The final vote on Sunday was 17-16, with the four Republicans who voted against the bill on Friday switching their votes to "present," allowing the legislation to clear the committee.

Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, one of the Republicans who switched his vote, said during Sunday's hearing that he is "excited about the changes we've made"—prompting Democratic committee members to ask, "What changes?"

"Do not be fooled," Democratic Rep. Stacey Plaskett of the U.S. Virgin Islands said Sunday. "The 'no' votes from certain Republicans on Friday were because the cuts were not fast or deep enough. In the back room, Republicans agreed to deeper and especially faster cuts to programs."

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) wrote in a social media post after joining Norman in voting "present" that "after a great deal of work and engagement over the weekend," the legislation "now will move Medicaid work requirements forward and reduces the availability of future subsidies under the green new scam"—a reference to clean energy tax credits established by the Inflation Reduction Act.

Roy and other Republican hardliners are also reportedly pursuing changes that could force states to end their Medicaid expansions, which would strip coverage from millions and potentially kill tens of thousands of people per year.

In its current form, the Republican reconciliation bill would inflict the largest cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in U.S. history, slashing or eliminating benefits for millions by implementing strict work requirements and forcing many Medicaid recipients to pay more for coverage, among other changes—all while giving major tax breaks to the wealthy.

The legislation's Medicaid work requirements, which policy experts have condemned as cruel and ineffective, were slated to begin in 2029, but GOP hardliners want them to start immediately.

The changes sought by Roy, Norman, and other far-right Republicans must get through the House Rules Committee before the bill can reach the House floor. The GOP controls the panel, and both Roy and Norman are members.

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said following Sunday's vote that "Republicans have spent months lying about their plan to make the largest cuts to healthcare and food assistance in American history."

"Kicking 13.7 million people off their healthcare apparently wasn't enough for House Republicans," Boyle added. "The only reason this vote passed tonight is because they've plotted behind closed doors to hurt even more families while refusing to share this backroom deal with the American people. This fight isn't over, and we're going to make sure every American knows exactly how they've been betrayed by Donald Trump and the Republican Party."