5 stories credited to ABC Columbia
1 story on abccolumbia.com credited to other publishers
Latest story Apr 16, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for ABC Columbia
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 5 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Articles this site reproduces
How provenance is decidedOriginal publishers of articles on abccolumbia.com
Counted from articles on abccolumbia.com whose original publisher is verified from the page itself or confirmed by an independent signal.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to ABC Columbia, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from ABC Columbia
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| March 2026 | 1 | 850 |
| April 2026 | 4 | 4,537 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 598 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Budget/Spending3
60% of 5 stories · 30% across all outlets
- Defense/Military3
60% of 5 stories · 24% across all outlets
- Economy3
60% of 5 stories · 24% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption2
40% of 5 stories · 56% across all outlets
- Foreign Policy2
40% of 5 stories · 28% across all outlets
- Taxes1
20% of 5 stories · 4% across all outlets
- Voting Rights1
20% of 5 stories · 18% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 16 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 19 story–official pairs, from 5 stories.
- Republican74% · 14 pairs
- Democrat26% · 5 pairs
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 5 stories.
- 1Donald TrumpR4 stories · 80%
- 2Becca BalintD1 story · 20%
- 3Brendan BoyleD1 story · 20%
- 4Charles SchumerD1 story · 20%
- 5Jodey ArringtonR1 story · 20%
- 6John KennedyR1 story · 20%
- 7John ThuneR1 story · 20%
- 8Lindsey GrahamR1 story · 20%
- 9Nancy MaceR1 story · 20%
- 10Pete HegsethR1 story · 20%
+ 6 other officials (6 story–official pairs)
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not ABC Columbia’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 5 stories.
- Good Look
- 0 (0%)
- Mixed
- 3 (60%)
- Informational
- 1 (20%)
- Bad Look
- 1 (20%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from abccolumbia.com
22
“Pathway to zero”- McMaster announces new 5.21% state income tax rate, gubernatorial candidates respond
COLUMBIA, SC (WOLO) — Governor McMaster and fellow lawmakers announced the new state income tax top rate of 5.21% in a ceremonial signing Wednesday morning. “We were at seven percent, now we’re at six. And we’re getting ready to go down to 5.21% right away, and we’re doing our best to keep on going down as conditions allow,” says McMaster. A number of legislators and local leaders were there for the ceremonial signing — including SC House Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Bruce Bannister, SC Manufacturers and Commerce CEO Sara Hazzard, and SC House Speaker Murrell Smith — who says the new state income tax will provide $308 million in immediate relief to South Carolina citizens. “A lower flatter tax structure encourages investment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity all over our state. It’s about encouraging opportunity and continuing to build a state where families and businesses can thrive,” says Smith. Bannister says any claim that this will raise state income taxes for poorer South Carolinians, or raise any other tax to offset the new amount — is not true. “Everybody pays a lower flatter tax and is treated more fairly. For those lower income folks, we still have the graduated rate where you have the lower rate for the low income folks but even with that the majority of South Carolinians are paying substantially less on their state income tax,” says Bannister. As SC elects another governor this November, McMaster and other leaders say this could offer the next person to take his place a path to 0% state income tax. ABC Columbia’s Lee Williams reached out to all of the candidates for governor and received the following responses, however some candidates’ responses were not received by the time the story aired or this article was posted. The article will be updated as they’re received. “This is a huge win, and a great step forward, for families and small businesses across South Carolina, delivering real relief and letting them keep more of their hard-earned money. I’m fully committed to finishing the job by eliminating the state income tax as your next governor,” says Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette. “Governor McMaster deserves credit for putting more money back in the pockets of South Carolinians. But a reduction is not elimination. South Carolina can do better, and we have a detailed plan to prove it,” says Congresswoman Nancy Mace. “Families across our state are being squeezed from every direction. People feel like they’re running harder but falling further behind. No one should be taking a victory lap when families are struggling just to make ends meet. South Carolina should be a place where opportunity is real and within reach. We can build a future where our state is more affordable for families and more profitable for businesses. As Governor, we will cut waste and spending and ensure every decision is made with families in mind,” says Attorney General Alan Wilson. “This income tax bill is nothing but a redistribution. Income tax needs to be eliminated by eliminating the uncontrolled doubling of spending over the last 10 years. Instead this approximate 300 million dollar cut is a redistribution of six billion dollars of income taxes, best described as a tax hoax,” says Businessman Rom Reddy. “The House passed a budget earlier this year that increased spending, showing a continued refusal to cut government waste. Until there is real spending discipline, there will be no real tax relief — especially while legislators vote to give themselves pay raises. Let’s be clear: NO ONE DESERVES A RAISE under these conditions!” says Congressman Ralph Norman. And speaking of taxes — Wednesday, April 15th marks the deadline to file your federal taxes — with the state tax deadline being moved to October 15th. According to the SC Department of Revenue: On March 30, 2026, Governor Henry McMaster signed H. 4216 into law. The bill: -Modifies South Carolina’s Individual Income Tax rates: -The tax rate for income less than $30,000 is 1.99%. -The tax rate for income from $30,000 and above is 5.21%, minus $966. -Mandates that the top Individual Income Tax rate will be further reduced if the Board of Economic Advisors (BEA) projects that revenue collections will increase by 5% or greater from the previous fiscal year. -The rate reduction cannot decrease revenue by more than $200 million. -The BEA will make the determination of the new Individual Income Tax rate no later than February 15 of each year. Categories: Local News, News Tags: Bruce Bannister, Governor, Governor Henry McMaster, Murrell Smith, state income tax
“Pathway to zero”- McMaster announces new 5.21% state income tax rate, gubernatorial candidates respond
COLUMBIA, SC (WOLO) — Governor McMaster and fellow lawmakers announced the new state income tax top rate of 5.21% in a ceremonial signing Wednesday morning. “We were at seven percent, now we’re at six. And we’re getting ready to go down to 5.21% right away, and we’re doing our best to keep on going down as conditions allow,” says McMaster. A number of legislators and local leaders were there for the ceremonial signing — including SC House Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Bruce Bannister, SC Manufacturers and Commerce CEO Sara Hazzard, and SC House Speaker Murrell Smith — who says the new state income tax will provide $308 million in immediate relief to South Carolina citizens. “A lower flatter tax structure encourages investment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity all over our state. It’s about encouraging opportunity and continuing to build a state where families and businesses can thrive,” says Smith. Bannister says any claim that this will raise state income taxes for poorer South Carolinians, or raise any other tax to offset the new amount — is not true. “Everybody pays a lower flatter tax and is treated more fairly. For those lower income folks, we still have the graduated rate where you have the lower rate for the low income folks but even with that the majority of South Carolinians are paying substantially less on their state income tax,” says Bannister. As SC elects another governor this November, McMaster and other leaders say this could offer the next person to take his place a path to 0% state income tax. ABC Columbia’s Lee Williams reached out to all of the candidates for governor and received the following responses, however some candidates’ responses were not received by the time the story aired or this article was posted. The article will be updated as they’re received. “This is a huge win, and a great step forward, for families and small businesses across South Carolina, delivering real relief and letting them keep more of their hard-earned money. I’m fully committed to finishing the job by eliminating the state income tax as your next governor,” says Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette. “Governor McMaster deserves credit for putting more money back in the pockets of South Carolinians. But a reduction is not elimination. South Carolina can do better, and we have a detailed plan to prove it,” says Congresswoman Nancy Mace. “Families across our state are being squeezed from every direction. People feel like they’re running harder but falling further behind. No one should be taking a victory lap when families are struggling just to make ends meet. South Carolina should be a place where opportunity is real and within reach. We can build a future where our state is more affordable for families and more profitable for businesses. As Governor, we will cut waste and spending and ensure every decision is made with families in mind,” says Attorney General Alan Wilson. “This income tax bill is nothing but a redistribution. Income tax needs to be eliminated by eliminating the uncontrolled doubling of spending over the last 10 years. Instead this approximate 300 million dollar cut is a redistribution of six billion dollars of income taxes, best described as a tax hoax,” says Businessman Rom Reddy. “The House passed a budget earlier this year that increased spending, showing a continued refusal to cut government waste. Until there is real spending discipline, there will be no real tax relief — especially while legislators vote to give themselves pay raises. Let’s be clear: NO ONE DESERVES A RAISE under these conditions!” says Congressman Ralph Norman. And speaking of taxes — Wednesday, April 15th marks the deadline to file your federal taxes — with the state tax deadline being moved to October 15th. According to the SC Department of Revenue: On March 30, 2026, Governor Henry McMaster signed H. 4216 into law. The bill: -Modifies South Carolina’s Individual Income Tax rates: -The tax rate for income less than $30,000 is 1.99%. -The tax rate for income from $30,000 and above is 5.21%, minus $966. -Mandates that the top Individual Income Tax rate will be further reduced if the Board of Economic Advisors (BEA) projects that revenue collections will increase by 5% or greater from the previous fiscal year. -The rate reduction cannot decrease revenue by more than $200 million. -The BEA will make the determination of the new Individual Income Tax rate no later than February 15 of each year. Categories: Local News, News Tags: Bruce Bannister, Governor, Governor Henry McMaster, Murrell Smith, state income tax
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
(AP) — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Donald Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday. The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare. The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country. “For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.” The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.” The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington, R-Texas, said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.” Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending. It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing. “You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks. Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.” Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., called the proposed defense spending increase shocking. “We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing health care, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?” “It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question. Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America First” mantra in her questioning. She said $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford health care. Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security. “He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said. Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year. “Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran War, President Donald Trump, U.S. military
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
(AP) — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Donald Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday. The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare. The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country. “For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.” The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.” The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington, R-Texas, said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.” Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending. It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing. “You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks. Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.” Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., called the proposed defense spending increase shocking. “We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing health care, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?” “It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question. Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America First” mantra in her questioning. She said $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford health care. Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security. “He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said. Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year. “Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran War, President Donald Trump, U.S. military
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
(AP) — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Donald Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday. The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare. The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country. “For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.” The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.” The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington, R-Texas, said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.” Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending. It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing. “You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks. Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.” Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., called the proposed defense spending increase shocking. “We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing health care, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?” “It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question. Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America First” mantra in her questioning. She said $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford health care. Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security. “He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said. Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year. “Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran War, President Donald Trump, U.S. military
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
(AP) — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Donald Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday. The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare. The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country. “For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.” The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.” The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington, R-Texas, said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.” Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending. It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing. “You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks. Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.” Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., called the proposed defense spending increase shocking. “We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing health care, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?” “It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question. Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America First” mantra in her questioning. She said $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford health care. Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security. “He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said. Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year. “Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran War, President Donald Trump, U.S. military
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
(AP) — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Donald Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday. The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare. The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country. “For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.” The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.” The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington, R-Texas, said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.” Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending. It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing. “You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks. Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.” Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., called the proposed defense spending increase shocking. “We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing health care, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?” “It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question. Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America First” mantra in her questioning. She said $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford health care. Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security. “He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said. Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year. “Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran War, President Donald Trump, U.S. military
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
(AP) — The Republican-led Senate on Wednesday rejected the latest Democratic attempt to halt President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, turning aside a resolution that would require the U.S. to withdraw forces from the conflict until Congress authorizes further action. The 47-52 vote was the fourth time this year that the Senate has voted to cede its war powers to the president in a conflict that Democrats say is illegal and unjustified. Republicans say they will keep faith in Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the high stakes of withdrawal. But GOP lawmakers are also anxious for the conflict to end — and they may not defer to the executive branch indefinitely. Some Republicans have already made clear that they are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days of its start — a deadline that will arrive at the end of this month. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension of that deadline, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the administration to soon lay out a plan for the end of the conflict. After the 60-day or 90-day deadline, “it’s time to fish or cut bait,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. “I think that the administration would be wise to put together what would look like a well-founded authorization of military force and a funding strategy,” Tillis said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has been talking to colleagues about putting together a resolution that would authorize the war beyond that time period. Republican Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine have also said they would like to see congressional action. “I have been clear from the beginning of this military operation that the President’s power is not unlimited as Commander in Chief, as the Constitution gives Congress an essential role in matters of war and peace,” Collins said in a statement. “If this conflict exceeds the 60 days specified in the War Powers Act, or if the President deploys troops on the ground, I believe that Congress should have to authorize those actions.” Democrats say war is illegal, unnecessary Democrats have vowed to force votes on the Senate floor as long as the war continues. “As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us,” said Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs in combat, before Wednesday’s vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that with gas prices climbing “the American people literally cannot afford for Republicans to forgo another opportunity to work with Democrats to end Trump’s disastrous war.” War votes are still uncertain Even as several Republicans are calling for eventual congressional action, it remains unclear if Republican leaders will go along. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said this week that “at this point most of us I think feel pretty good about what the military has achieved there.” Thune would not commit to a vote. But he did say that “they do need a plan for how to wind this down, how to get an outcome that actually leads to a safer, more secure Middle East and, by extension, a stronger national security position for the United States.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said that at the 60-day deadline, Congress isn’t going to “jump up and say that’s it, it’s one second past 60 days, everybody come home.” Some of the people who want a vote just want to embarrass Trump, Kennedy said. “I want to see us achieve our objective in Iran,” Kennedy said. “And then I want to see us get out.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran Missile Attack, Iran Missile Strikes, Iran War, President Donald Trump, Republican
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
(AP) — An effort to ramp up U.S. weapons production and build more ships, planes and drones will require a massive upfront investment, President Donald Trump’s budget director told a House committee Wednesday. The testimony from Russell Vought jump-starts the White House’s push to increase defense spending to nearly $1.5 trillion in the next budget year, up from nearly $1 trillion this year, while cutting health research, heating assistance and scores of other domestic programs by about 10% overall. Such cuts do not cover mandatory spending, which includes such programs as Social Security and Medicare. The debate over Trump’s proposal underscored the sharp divide that will shape some of the most significant policy debates going into a midterm election that will give voters the ultimate say on the direction of the country. “For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multiyear agreements to purchase into the future,” Vought told lawmakers. “That cost has to be booked in this first year.” The White House is calling for about $1.1 trillion for defense through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. An additional $350 billion would come through a separate bill that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes. Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, said he believes in a strong national defense. But he said the idea of increasing defense by more than 40% while cutting programs that people need shows that the Republican administration’s priorities are “out of whack.” The committee chairman, Rep. Jodey Arrington predicted the hearing would be more “amped up” than usual, and that proved to be true, beginning with his opening statement focused on criticizing Democrat Joe Biden’s presidency. Arrington, R-Texas, said he did not know of any president in his lifetime who “inherited such a complete and utter mess as President Trump did in January of last year.” Since then, Arrington said, Trump has secured the border, cut taxes and constrained nondefense spending. It was the beginning of several back-and-forths at the hearing. “You know how bad this economy is when we hear Joe Biden being invoked, we hear trans people being invoked. I was waiting for Jimmy Carter to be blamed next,” Boyle said in response to Arrington’s opening remarks. Boyle said consumer confidence is plummeting under Trump and noted a gas station he passed in Philadelphia recently was selling gas at $4.11 a gallon versus less than $3 a gallon some six weeks ago because of Trump’s “war of choice in Iran.” Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., called the proposed defense spending increase shocking. “We’ve never in the history of this country seen spending like this, paid for by slashing health care, education and housing,” Balint said. “Mr. Vought, yes or no, is $350 billion for the war in Iran lowering costs for Americans?” “It is certainly not defunding child care. We fully fund child care in this budget,” Vought said, not directly answering the question. Balint went on to incorporate Trump’s “America First” mantra in her questioning. She said $350 billion could pay for an enhanced health insurance tax credit for 10 years and that her constituents are asking how the country can continue to spend money on wars and not find a solution to helping people afford health care. Vought said the president has made clear he was not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapons, missiles and a navy that affect U.S. national security. “He is doing what is necessary to keep us safe, while at the same time trying to pursue diplomacy so that we can get out of wars and lower those costs over time,” Vought said. Vought said it was unclear how much the administration would seek to fund the war during the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. That money would be part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and would be on top of the funds the White House is seeking to boost defense spending next year. “Would it be more than $50 billion?” asked Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “We’re still working on it,” Vought said. “I don’t have a ballpark for you.” Categories: National News, News, Politics Tags: Iran, Iran War, President Donald Trump, U.S. military
Project 2025 author Paul Dans drops primary challenge to Lindsey Graham in South Carolina
(AP) — Paul Dans, a chief architect of Project 2025, has shuttered his Republican primary challenge to Sen. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, in a contest set to test the loyalties of President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement in this year’s midterm election. Dans pulled out Friday, the last day to remove his name from ballots before the state’s primary on June 9. Trump — who long ago endorsed Graham, among his top congressional allies — reacted to the announcement with a social media post suggesting that Tucker Carlson’s endorsement of Dans had been the “KISS OF DEATH” for his campaign. Trump and Carlson have been feuding over the Iran war, which the former Fox News star called “absolutely disgusting and evil.” Dans denied his decision to withdraw had anything to do with Carlson. Dans said he was endorsing another Republican in the contest, appliance business owner Mark Lynch. In another social media post, Trump said Lynch “would be a DISASTER for the Republican Party” if elected. Dans rose to prominence as one of the people behind Project 2025, which was a blueprint for conservative governance if Trump won his comeback campaign. He said he was pleased with some of Trump’s progress after taking office — including federal workforce reductions and cuts to federal programs — but there was “more work to do” in the Senate. “What we’ve done with Project 2025 is really change the game in terms of closing the door on the progressive era,” Dans told The Associated Press last year. ”If you look at where the chokepoint is, it’s the United States Senate. That’s the headwaters of the swamp.” Dans, an attorney who worked in the first Trump administration as White House liaison to the office of personnel management, often commuted on weekdays to Washington as he organized Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The nearly 1,000-page policy blueprint included chapters written by leading conservative thinkers. Challenging the long-serving Graham, who has routinely batted back contenders over the years, is something of a political long shot. A half-dozen other Republican candidates remain in the race, and Graham’s campaign said Monday it had more than $11.6 million cash on hand, raising nearly $1.4 million in the first quarter of this year. Trump early on gave his endorsement of Graham, a political confidant and regular golfing partner of the president, despite their on-again-off-again relationship. Graham, in announcing he would seek a fifth term in the Senate, also secured the state’s leading Republicans, Sen. Tim Scott and Gov. Henry McMaster, to chair his 2026 run. Categories: News, Politics Tags: Lindsey Graham, Paul Dans, Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham
Project 2025 author Paul Dans drops primary challenge to Lindsey Graham in South Carolina
(AP) — Paul Dans, a chief architect of Project 2025, has shuttered his Republican primary challenge to Sen. Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, in a contest set to test the loyalties of President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement in this year’s midterm election. Dans pulled out Friday, the last day to remove his name from ballots before the state’s primary on June 9. Trump — who long ago endorsed Graham, among his top congressional allies — reacted to the announcement with a social media post suggesting that Tucker Carlson’s endorsement of Dans had been the “KISS OF DEATH” for his campaign. Trump and Carlson have been feuding over the Iran war, which the former Fox News star called “absolutely disgusting and evil.” Dans denied his decision to withdraw had anything to do with Carlson. Dans said he was endorsing another Republican in the contest, appliance business owner Mark Lynch. In another social media post, Trump said Lynch “would be a DISASTER for the Republican Party” if elected. Dans rose to prominence as one of the people behind Project 2025, which was a blueprint for conservative governance if Trump won his comeback campaign. He said he was pleased with some of Trump’s progress after taking office — including federal workforce reductions and cuts to federal programs — but there was “more work to do” in the Senate. “What we’ve done with Project 2025 is really change the game in terms of closing the door on the progressive era,” Dans told The Associated Press last year. ”If you look at where the chokepoint is, it’s the United States Senate. That’s the headwaters of the swamp.” Dans, an attorney who worked in the first Trump administration as White House liaison to the office of personnel management, often commuted on weekdays to Washington as he organized Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The nearly 1,000-page policy blueprint included chapters written by leading conservative thinkers. Challenging the long-serving Graham, who has routinely batted back contenders over the years, is something of a political long shot. A half-dozen other Republican candidates remain in the race, and Graham’s campaign said Monday it had more than $11.6 million cash on hand, raising nearly $1.4 million in the first quarter of this year. Trump early on gave his endorsement of Graham, a political confidant and regular golfing partner of the president, despite their on-again-off-again relationship. Graham, in announcing he would seek a fifth term in the Senate, also secured the state’s leading Republicans, Sen. Tim Scott and Gov. Henry McMaster, to chair his 2026 run. Categories: News, Politics Tags: Lindsey Graham, Paul Dans, Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham
What to know about the automatic system to register young men for the military draft
(ABC NEWS)– Young men in the U.S. will be automatically registered into the military draft pool by this December through a measure signed into law last December, formalizing a practice already conducted in much of the country. The measure was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, the must-pass legislation that sets the Pentagon’s budget and policy agenda, and has no relation to the current war with Iran. The change follows years of debate on Capitol Hill over how, or whether, to reform draft registration, a system the U.S. hasn’t executed since 1973, when it shifted to an all-volunteer force. Lawmakers have been split, with some pushing to expand registration to include women, while others have argued the system should be scrapped entirely. For a century, men between 18 and 25 years old, including most immigrants, have been required to register for the draft manually, typically through a government website or at the local department of motor vehicles, with uneven compliance rates, federal data shows. The Selective Service System, which governs the draft pool, has an annual budget of $30 million, spending much of that on outreach and other advertising campaigns. Automatic registration is already conducted, in some form, in 46 states and territories, such as when a man gets a driver’s license, according to data from the Selective Service System. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Pennsylvania Democrat who introduced the change alongside Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, said in 2024 that automatic registration “saves taxpayers significant money and makes it easier for these men to follow the law and register with the Selective Service.” The Selective Service System estimates the new platform will cost roughly $6 million to build the automated system. Click here for more from ABC Columbia. Categories: Local News, News, Politics Tags: Capitol Hill, National Defense Authorization Act, President Donald Trump, The White House, U.S. military, White House
What to know about the automatic system to register young men for the military draft
(ABC NEWS)– Young men in the U.S. will be automatically registered into the military draft pool by this December through a measure signed into law last December, formalizing a practice already conducted in much of the country. The measure was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, the must-pass legislation that sets the Pentagon’s budget and policy agenda, and has no relation to the current war with Iran. The change follows years of debate on Capitol Hill over how, or whether, to reform draft registration, a system the U.S. hasn’t executed since 1973, when it shifted to an all-volunteer force. Lawmakers have been split, with some pushing to expand registration to include women, while others have argued the system should be scrapped entirely. For a century, men between 18 and 25 years old, including most immigrants, have been required to register for the draft manually, typically through a government website or at the local department of motor vehicles, with uneven compliance rates, federal data shows. The Selective Service System, which governs the draft pool, has an annual budget of $30 million, spending much of that on outreach and other advertising campaigns. Automatic registration is already conducted, in some form, in 46 states and territories, such as when a man gets a driver’s license, according to data from the Selective Service System. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Pennsylvania Democrat who introduced the change alongside Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, said in 2024 that automatic registration “saves taxpayers significant money and makes it easier for these men to follow the law and register with the Selective Service.” The Selective Service System estimates the new platform will cost roughly $6 million to build the automated system. Click here for more from ABC Columbia. Categories: Local News, News, Politics Tags: Capitol Hill, National Defense Authorization Act, President Donald Trump, The White House, U.S. military, White House