7 stories credited to The Commercial Dispatch
Latest story Apr 17, 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 The Commercial Dispatch
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 6 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 24, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to The Commercial Dispatch, 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 The Commercial Dispatch
- 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 |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 7 | 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/Spending4
57% of 7 stories · 33% across all outlets
- Defense/Military4
57% of 7 stories · 26% across all outlets
- Economy3
43% of 7 stories · 26% across all outlets
- Foreign Policy3
43% of 7 stories · 30% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption2
29% of 7 stories · 62% across all outlets
- Infrastructure2
29% of 7 stories · 8% across all outlets
- Criminal Justice1
14% of 7 stories · 20% across all outlets
- Housing1
14% of 7 stories · 1% 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 20 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 22 story–official pairs, from 7 stories.
- Republican64% · 14 pairs
- Democrat32% · 7 pairs
- Party not recorded5% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 7 stories.
- 1Donald TrumpR2 stories · 29%
- 2Thomas TillisR2 stories · 29%
- 3Brendan BoyleD1 story · 14%
- 4Brian MastR1 story · 14%
- 5Charles SchumerD1 story · 14%
- 6Gregory MeeksD1 story · 14%
- 7Hakeem JeffriesD1 story · 14%
- 8Jerome Powell–1 story · 14%
- 9Jodey ArringtonR1 story · 14%
- 10John ThuneR1 story · 14%
+ 10 other officials (10 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 The Commercial Dispatch’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 7 stories.
- Good Look
- 0 (0%)
- Mixed
- 6 (86%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 1 (14%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from cdispatch.com
22House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump
WASHINGTON — The House rejected a resolution Thursday requiring President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from the war with Iran unless Congress authorizes military action. It was the latest such vote that fell short of passage as Republicans largely continue to support Trump’s operation. Democrats voiced concern that the United States is becoming further entrenched in another lengthy conflict in the Middle East. They promised to keep raising the issue through more war powers votes in the coming weeks. The 213-214 vote came one day after a similar effort failed in the Senate. The U.S. and Israel struck Iran on Feb. 28, and a fragile ceasefire is now in its second week. Democrats overwhelmingly supported the attempt to rein in Trump’s use of military force. “We’re standing at the edge of a cliff and Congress must act before the president pushes off,” said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.” Republicans tried to cast the effort as hypocritical. Florida Rep. Brian Mast, the committee chairman, said Congress never voted on a war powers resolution when the U.S. attacked Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen in 2024 while Democrat Joe Biden was president. “When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was OK. No war power needed. It went on for about a year,” Mast said. “President Trump responds — war power, war power, war power. … That’s the hypocrisy.” Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days — a deadline in the Iran war that will arrive at the end of April. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the Republican administration to soon lay out a plan for the war’s end. While the House vote failed, it gave Democrats an opportunity to highlight some of the most negative effects of the war: the billions of dollars spent, the death of at least 13 service members, the soaring gas prices and fissures with long-standing allies who do not support Trump’s actions. “Gas prices at home are up to $7 in my home state, and families are hurting,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. “Another 10,000 U.S. troops are being sent in to join 50,000 already stationed in the Middle East with absolutely no strategy, no plan and no exit.” Republicans defended Trump as taking decisive action against an Iranian government that has long terrorized the Middle East and its own people. “President Donald Trump has sent a message that those who threaten the United States and our partners will be ultimately held accountable,” said Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. In Thursday’s vote, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for removing U.S. forces from the war. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote against the measure. The first House vote to curb Trump’s military action with Iran failed in early March, 212-219. The post House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump appeared first on The Dispatch.
House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump
WASHINGTON — The House rejected a resolution Thursday requiring President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from the war with Iran unless Congress authorizes military action. It was the latest such vote that fell short of passage as Republicans largely continue to support Trump’s operation. Democrats voiced concern that the United States is becoming further entrenched in another lengthy conflict in the Middle East. They promised to keep raising the issue through more war powers votes in the coming weeks. The 213-214 vote came one day after a similar effort failed in the Senate. The U.S. and Israel struck Iran on Feb. 28, and a fragile ceasefire is now in its second week. Democrats overwhelmingly supported the attempt to rein in Trump’s use of military force. “We’re standing at the edge of a cliff and Congress must act before the president pushes off,” said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.” Republicans tried to cast the effort as hypocritical. Florida Rep. Brian Mast, the committee chairman, said Congress never voted on a war powers resolution when the U.S. attacked Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen in 2024 while Democrat Joe Biden was president. “When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was OK. No war power needed. It went on for about a year,” Mast said. “President Trump responds — war power, war power, war power. … That’s the hypocrisy.” Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days — a deadline in the Iran war that will arrive at the end of April. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the Republican administration to soon lay out a plan for the war’s end. While the House vote failed, it gave Democrats an opportunity to highlight some of the most negative effects of the war: the billions of dollars spent, the death of at least 13 service members, the soaring gas prices and fissures with long-standing allies who do not support Trump’s actions. “Gas prices at home are up to $7 in my home state, and families are hurting,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. “Another 10,000 U.S. troops are being sent in to join 50,000 already stationed in the Middle East with absolutely no strategy, no plan and no exit.” Republicans defended Trump as taking decisive action against an Iranian government that has long terrorized the Middle East and its own people. “President Donald Trump has sent a message that those who threaten the United States and our partners will be ultimately held accountable,” said Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. In Thursday’s vote, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for removing U.S. forces from the war. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote against the measure. The first House vote to curb Trump’s military action with Iran failed in early March, 212-219. The post House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump appeared first on The Dispatch.
House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump
WASHINGTON — The House rejected a resolution Thursday requiring President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from the war with Iran unless Congress authorizes military action. It was the latest such vote that fell short of passage as Republicans largely continue to support Trump’s operation. Democrats voiced concern that the United States is becoming further entrenched in another lengthy conflict in the Middle East. They promised to keep raising the issue through more war powers votes in the coming weeks. The 213-214 vote came one day after a similar effort failed in the Senate. The U.S. and Israel struck Iran on Feb. 28, and a fragile ceasefire is now in its second week. Democrats overwhelmingly supported the attempt to rein in Trump’s use of military force. “We’re standing at the edge of a cliff and Congress must act before the president pushes off,” said New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. “Every day we delay, we inch closer to a conflict with no exit ramp.” Republicans tried to cast the effort as hypocritical. Florida Rep. Brian Mast, the committee chairman, said Congress never voted on a war powers resolution when the U.S. attacked Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen in 2024 while Democrat Joe Biden was president. “When Joe Biden was responding to merchant marine vessels being attacked, it was OK. No war power needed. It went on for about a year,” Mast said. “President Trump responds — war power, war power, war power. … That’s the hypocrisy.” Under the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress must declare war or authorize use of force within 60 days — a deadline in the Iran war that will arrive at the end of April. The law provides for a potential 30-day extension, but lawmakers have made clear that they want the Republican administration to soon lay out a plan for the war’s end. While the House vote failed, it gave Democrats an opportunity to highlight some of the most negative effects of the war: the billions of dollars spent, the death of at least 13 service members, the soaring gas prices and fissures with long-standing allies who do not support Trump’s actions. “Gas prices at home are up to $7 in my home state, and families are hurting,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash. “Another 10,000 U.S. troops are being sent in to join 50,000 already stationed in the Middle East with absolutely no strategy, no plan and no exit.” Republicans defended Trump as taking decisive action against an Iranian government that has long terrorized the Middle East and its own people. “President Donald Trump has sent a message that those who threaten the United States and our partners will be ultimately held accountable,” said Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. In Thursday’s vote, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for removing U.S. forces from the war. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote against the measure. The first House vote to curb Trump’s military action with Iran failed in early March, 212-219. The post House rejects effort to withdraw US forces from the Iran war as Republicans stick with Trump appeared first on The Dispatch.
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes appeared first on The Dispatch.
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes appeared first on The Dispatch.
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes appeared first on The Dispatch.
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes appeared first on The Dispatch.
Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Senate Republicans reject effort to halt Iran war, but some eye future war powers votes appeared first on The Dispatch.
Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit this week to a construction site at Federal Reserve headquarters that is the focus of an investigation into a $2.5 billion renovation project, according to two people familiar with the visit. Two prosecutors and an investigator from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office were turned away on Tuesday by a building contractor and referred to Fed attorneys, one of the people said. The two people familiar with the visit spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation. The visit underscores that the Trump administration is not backing down from its investigation of the Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, even though the probe has delayed the confirmation of a new chair nominated by President Donald Trump. The investigation is focused on cost overruns and brief testimony about the project last summer by Powell. Trump confirmed in an interview that aired Wednesday on Fox Business that he wants to continue the probe. Last month, during a closed-door hearing before a federal judge, a top deputy from Pirro’s office conceded that they hadn’t found any evidence of a crime in their investigation of the headquarters project. Robert Hur, an attorney for the Federal Reserve board of governors, sent an email to Pirro’s prosecutors about their visit and their request for a “tour” to “check on progress” at the construction site. Hur’s email, which The Associated Press has viewed, noted that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that their interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was “pretextual.” “Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur wrote. Republican Tillis is key vote Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has vowed to vote against Kevin Warsh, Trump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chair, until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided on partisan lines, Tillis’ opposition is enough to block Warsh from receiving the committee’s approval. Tillis on Wednesday criticized the investigation as “bogus, ill-timed, ill-informed” and repeated that seven Republican members of the banking panel have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime when he testified last June. Tillis also said there aren’t enough votes on the committee or in the broader Senate to do an end-run around the committee and get Warsh confirmed some other way. “There really is no path,” he told reporters, adding that Pirro and her aides were “asleep at the switch” because the investigation has essentially delayed Powell’s departure from the Fed, despite Trump’s obsessive criticism of the Fed chair. Powell has now said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. Tillis suggested Pirro blindsided the White House with her investigation. “They should have consulted with the White House, because I’m sure if they would have, (the White House) would have said, ‘no, we can wait,’” until Powell steps down. But Kevin Hassett, the Trump administration’s top economist, said Wednesday that the Justice Department got involved because “the president wanted to investigate the cost overrun,” Axios reported. The Banking panel said Tuesday that it will hold a hearing on Warsh’s nomination April 21. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends May 15, but Powell said last month he would remain as chair until a replacement is named. Powell is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Chairs typically leave the board when their terms as chair end, but they can remain on the board if they choose. Powell has said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. If he remains it would deny Trump the opportunity to appoint someone else to the seven-member board. Late Tuesday Tillis posted a link on social media to The Wall Street Journal’s article on the visit below an image of the Three Stooges and wrote, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. at the crime scene.” Investigation centers on building renovations The investigation centers on an appearance by Powell before the Banking Committee last June, when he was asked about cost overruns on the renovations. The most recent estimates from the Fed suggest the current estimated cost of $2.5 billion is about $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion. “It is probably corrupt, but what it really is, is incompetent,” Trump said. “Don’t you think we have to find out what happened there?” The president’s support for the investigation threatens a timeframe set out by Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Banking Committee. Scott said Tuesday on Fox Business that he believed the investigation would be “wrapped up in the next few weeks,” allowing Warsh to be confirmed soon after. Threat to fire Powell News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve Chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month. “Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said. Trump has for months wanted to remove Powell, saying he has been too slow in orchestrating interest rate cuts that would give the U.S. economy a quick boost. Powell has said the investigation is a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence to set rates. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said Trump can only fire Powell “for cause,” meaning some kind of misconduct, “so that’s a pretty tall order.” Supreme Court weighing another Trump removal Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time. The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy. The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiously, calling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.” The post Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell appeared first on The Dispatch.
Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit this week to a construction site at Federal Reserve headquarters that is the focus of an investigation into a $2.5 billion renovation project, according to two people familiar with the visit. Two prosecutors and an investigator from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office were turned away on Tuesday by a building contractor and referred to Fed attorneys, one of the people said. The two people familiar with the visit spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation. The visit underscores that the Trump administration is not backing down from its investigation of the Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, even though the probe has delayed the confirmation of a new chair nominated by President Donald Trump. The investigation is focused on cost overruns and brief testimony about the project last summer by Powell. Trump confirmed in an interview that aired Wednesday on Fox Business that he wants to continue the probe. Last month, during a closed-door hearing before a federal judge, a top deputy from Pirro’s office conceded that they hadn’t found any evidence of a crime in their investigation of the headquarters project. Robert Hur, an attorney for the Federal Reserve board of governors, sent an email to Pirro’s prosecutors about their visit and their request for a “tour” to “check on progress” at the construction site. Hur’s email, which The Associated Press has viewed, noted that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that their interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was “pretextual.” “Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur wrote. Republican Tillis is key vote Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has vowed to vote against Kevin Warsh, Trump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chair, until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided on partisan lines, Tillis’ opposition is enough to block Warsh from receiving the committee’s approval. Tillis on Wednesday criticized the investigation as “bogus, ill-timed, ill-informed” and repeated that seven Republican members of the banking panel have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime when he testified last June. Tillis also said there aren’t enough votes on the committee or in the broader Senate to do an end-run around the committee and get Warsh confirmed some other way. “There really is no path,” he told reporters, adding that Pirro and her aides were “asleep at the switch” because the investigation has essentially delayed Powell’s departure from the Fed, despite Trump’s obsessive criticism of the Fed chair. Powell has now said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. Tillis suggested Pirro blindsided the White House with her investigation. “They should have consulted with the White House, because I’m sure if they would have, (the White House) would have said, ‘no, we can wait,’” until Powell steps down. But Kevin Hassett, the Trump administration’s top economist, said Wednesday that the Justice Department got involved because “the president wanted to investigate the cost overrun,” Axios reported. The Banking panel said Tuesday that it will hold a hearing on Warsh’s nomination April 21. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends May 15, but Powell said last month he would remain as chair until a replacement is named. Powell is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Chairs typically leave the board when their terms as chair end, but they can remain on the board if they choose. Powell has said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. If he remains it would deny Trump the opportunity to appoint someone else to the seven-member board. Late Tuesday Tillis posted a link on social media to The Wall Street Journal’s article on the visit below an image of the Three Stooges and wrote, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. at the crime scene.” Investigation centers on building renovations The investigation centers on an appearance by Powell before the Banking Committee last June, when he was asked about cost overruns on the renovations. The most recent estimates from the Fed suggest the current estimated cost of $2.5 billion is about $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion. “It is probably corrupt, but what it really is, is incompetent,” Trump said. “Don’t you think we have to find out what happened there?” The president’s support for the investigation threatens a timeframe set out by Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Banking Committee. Scott said Tuesday on Fox Business that he believed the investigation would be “wrapped up in the next few weeks,” allowing Warsh to be confirmed soon after. Threat to fire Powell News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve Chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month. “Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said. Trump has for months wanted to remove Powell, saying he has been too slow in orchestrating interest rate cuts that would give the U.S. economy a quick boost. Powell has said the investigation is a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence to set rates. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said Trump can only fire Powell “for cause,” meaning some kind of misconduct, “so that’s a pretty tall order.” Supreme Court weighing another Trump removal Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time. The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy. The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiously, calling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.” The post Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell appeared first on The Dispatch.
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending appeared first on The Dispatch.
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending appeared first on The Dispatch.
Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending
WASHINGTON — 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.” The post Trump’s budget director defends White House plan for massive boost in military spending appeared first on The Dispatch.
Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats to wipe out Iran, “a whole civilization,” ended the restraint that Democrats have mostly practiced when it comes to questions of removing him from office in his second term. By the dozens, Democrats came out to say that Trump should no longer serve in the White House, either through the impeachment process or the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that a president is no longer able to perform the job. While Trump eventually pulled back on his threat and agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the episode highlighted the growing demands for Democrats to oppose the Republican president in the strongest possible terms. Calls about Iran flooded into congressional offices, lawmakers said. The breadth of the Democratic pushback underscored the gravity of Trump’s apocalyptic threat to a country of more than 91 million people. It also served to raise the domestic political stakes for a conflict that is far from over. The Trump administration faces mounting calls to testify about the war and justify its demands for hundreds of billions of dollars in new military spending. “We cannot excuse what the president said as a negotiating tactic,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat told reporters at the Capitol Thursday. “It is important that even though we were able to get this ceasefire, which I pray holds, that we hold this president accountable for what he threatened because threatening genocide is not just against international law, it’s against our federal law, too,” she added. Still, Democratic leaders and many moderates in the party have steered clear of endorsing impeachment, and any attempt to remove Trump from office is doomed to fail so long as Republicans control Congress. In the near term, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are instead pushing Republicans to join them and pass legislation that would force Trump to get congressional approval before carrying out any more attacks on Iran. A few Democrats attempted during a brief session of the House on Thursday to pass what’s known as a war powers resolution on Iran, but Republicans, who control the chamber, did not acknowledge their request. “We need Speaker Johnson to call us into session,” said Democratic Rep Emily Randall of Washington. “The American people deserve that.” At the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended Trump’s rhetoric as effective. “I think it was a very, very strong threat from the president of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a ceasefire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” she said at a Wednesday White House press briefing. Callers jam congressional phone lines As they press their case against Trump, Democrats are responding to the worries of their own base and constituents. Congressional offices were bombarded with phone calls and emails this week, largely from people alarmed by the president’s rhetoric. In the House, the office of Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., received a “ton” of calls and emails Monday and Tuesday, mostly about Iran but also about impeaching Trump or removing him by deploying the 25th Amendment, said one aide who was not authorized to discuss the internal office situation and insisted on anonymity. When her district staffers in the state office took a break Tuesday, they returned to 75 voicemails on Iran an hour later, the aide said. “My office phones have not stopped ringing,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., at a press conference in Portland, urging House colleagues to immediately return to Washington. Dexter’s office received more calls on Tuesday, 257, than it has ever received in a 24-hour period since the first-term lawmaker’s team began keeping track. The groundswell appeared to be organic, rather than an orchestrated campaign to pressure lawmakers to act. While outside groups have been circulating some discussion points, including the legal details around invoking the 25th Amendment, there has not been an organized effort to flood the congressional offices with a strategic message, said one Democratic strategist familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss the private conversations. It was simply the “horror” of what Trump was saying, the strategist said, and the scale of the president’s threats, that appeared to have sparked the mobilization. On the political right, several prominent figures including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also suggested Trump should be removed from office through the 25th Amendment. Will Democrats make an impeachment push? Democrats twice impeached Trump for actions taken during his first term, but he was acquitted each time. They have tried to avoid such debates for the last 16 months as they tried to center their midterm message on kitchen table issues rather than opposing a president who narrowly won the popular vote. Republicans also have the majority in the House and have easily fended off two previous efforts to impeach Trump in his second term. A significant number of Democrats have either joined with Republicans or voted “present” as the House blocked impeachment resolutions sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas. Then came Trump’s threat on Tuesday morning to wipe out “an entire civilization.” “Temporary ceasefire or not, Trump already committed an impeachable offense. Congress needs to get back to work and remove him from office before he does more damage to our country and the world,” said Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a veteran of the war in Iraq. It’s unclear how House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries will handle the demands for another impeachment push. But Democratic leaders are holding a call on Friday with members of the House Judiciary Committee that is focused on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment.” Standing on the Capitol steps Thursday, Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., said she supports impeachment, but nevertheless hit the brakes on it for now, as the Democrats are in the minority. Instead, she called on Republicans to stand up to Trump’s threats, including by invoking the 25th Amendment. She predicted the imperative to remove Trump from office could only grow as negotiators navigate a fragile framework for a peace deal. Dean and other Democrats criticized the plan as “chaotic” and unworkable. Yet Dean said Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization should have already been enough. “The president brought the entire globe to watch his madness,” she said. The post Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats appeared first on The Dispatch.
Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats to wipe out Iran, “a whole civilization,” ended the restraint that Democrats have mostly practiced when it comes to questions of removing him from office in his second term. By the dozens, Democrats came out to say that Trump should no longer serve in the White House, either through the impeachment process or the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that a president is no longer able to perform the job. While Trump eventually pulled back on his threat and agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the episode highlighted the growing demands for Democrats to oppose the Republican president in the strongest possible terms. Calls about Iran flooded into congressional offices, lawmakers said. The breadth of the Democratic pushback underscored the gravity of Trump’s apocalyptic threat to a country of more than 91 million people. It also served to raise the domestic political stakes for a conflict that is far from over. The Trump administration faces mounting calls to testify about the war and justify its demands for hundreds of billions of dollars in new military spending. “We cannot excuse what the president said as a negotiating tactic,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat told reporters at the Capitol Thursday. “It is important that even though we were able to get this ceasefire, which I pray holds, that we hold this president accountable for what he threatened because threatening genocide is not just against international law, it’s against our federal law, too,” she added. Still, Democratic leaders and many moderates in the party have steered clear of endorsing impeachment, and any attempt to remove Trump from office is doomed to fail so long as Republicans control Congress. In the near term, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are instead pushing Republicans to join them and pass legislation that would force Trump to get congressional approval before carrying out any more attacks on Iran. A few Democrats attempted during a brief session of the House on Thursday to pass what’s known as a war powers resolution on Iran, but Republicans, who control the chamber, did not acknowledge their request. “We need Speaker Johnson to call us into session,” said Democratic Rep Emily Randall of Washington. “The American people deserve that.” At the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended Trump’s rhetoric as effective. “I think it was a very, very strong threat from the president of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a ceasefire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” she said at a Wednesday White House press briefing. Callers jam congressional phone lines As they press their case against Trump, Democrats are responding to the worries of their own base and constituents. Congressional offices were bombarded with phone calls and emails this week, largely from people alarmed by the president’s rhetoric. In the House, the office of Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., received a “ton” of calls and emails Monday and Tuesday, mostly about Iran but also about impeaching Trump or removing him by deploying the 25th Amendment, said one aide who was not authorized to discuss the internal office situation and insisted on anonymity. When her district staffers in the state office took a break Tuesday, they returned to 75 voicemails on Iran an hour later, the aide said. “My office phones have not stopped ringing,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., at a press conference in Portland, urging House colleagues to immediately return to Washington. Dexter’s office received more calls on Tuesday, 257, than it has ever received in a 24-hour period since the first-term lawmaker’s team began keeping track. The groundswell appeared to be organic, rather than an orchestrated campaign to pressure lawmakers to act. While outside groups have been circulating some discussion points, including the legal details around invoking the 25th Amendment, there has not been an organized effort to flood the congressional offices with a strategic message, said one Democratic strategist familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss the private conversations. It was simply the “horror” of what Trump was saying, the strategist said, and the scale of the president’s threats, that appeared to have sparked the mobilization. On the political right, several prominent figures including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also suggested Trump should be removed from office through the 25th Amendment. Will Democrats make an impeachment push? Democrats twice impeached Trump for actions taken during his first term, but he was acquitted each time. They have tried to avoid such debates for the last 16 months as they tried to center their midterm message on kitchen table issues rather than opposing a president who narrowly won the popular vote. Republicans also have the majority in the House and have easily fended off two previous efforts to impeach Trump in his second term. A significant number of Democrats have either joined with Republicans or voted “present” as the House blocked impeachment resolutions sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas. Then came Trump’s threat on Tuesday morning to wipe out “an entire civilization.” “Temporary ceasefire or not, Trump already committed an impeachable offense. Congress needs to get back to work and remove him from office before he does more damage to our country and the world,” said Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a veteran of the war in Iraq. It’s unclear how House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries will handle the demands for another impeachment push. But Democratic leaders are holding a call on Friday with members of the House Judiciary Committee that is focused on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment.” Standing on the Capitol steps Thursday, Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., said she supports impeachment, but nevertheless hit the brakes on it for now, as the Democrats are in the minority. Instead, she called on Republicans to stand up to Trump’s threats, including by invoking the 25th Amendment. She predicted the imperative to remove Trump from office could only grow as negotiators navigate a fragile framework for a peace deal. Dean and other Democrats criticized the plan as “chaotic” and unworkable. Yet Dean said Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization should have already been enough. “The president brought the entire globe to watch his madness,” she said. The post Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats appeared first on The Dispatch.
Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats to wipe out Iran, “a whole civilization,” ended the restraint that Democrats have mostly practiced when it comes to questions of removing him from office in his second term. By the dozens, Democrats came out to say that Trump should no longer serve in the White House, either through the impeachment process or the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that a president is no longer able to perform the job. While Trump eventually pulled back on his threat and agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the episode highlighted the growing demands for Democrats to oppose the Republican president in the strongest possible terms. Calls about Iran flooded into congressional offices, lawmakers said. The breadth of the Democratic pushback underscored the gravity of Trump’s apocalyptic threat to a country of more than 91 million people. It also served to raise the domestic political stakes for a conflict that is far from over. The Trump administration faces mounting calls to testify about the war and justify its demands for hundreds of billions of dollars in new military spending. “We cannot excuse what the president said as a negotiating tactic,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat told reporters at the Capitol Thursday. “It is important that even though we were able to get this ceasefire, which I pray holds, that we hold this president accountable for what he threatened because threatening genocide is not just against international law, it’s against our federal law, too,” she added. Still, Democratic leaders and many moderates in the party have steered clear of endorsing impeachment, and any attempt to remove Trump from office is doomed to fail so long as Republicans control Congress. In the near term, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are instead pushing Republicans to join them and pass legislation that would force Trump to get congressional approval before carrying out any more attacks on Iran. A few Democrats attempted during a brief session of the House on Thursday to pass what’s known as a war powers resolution on Iran, but Republicans, who control the chamber, did not acknowledge their request. “We need Speaker Johnson to call us into session,” said Democratic Rep Emily Randall of Washington. “The American people deserve that.” At the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended Trump’s rhetoric as effective. “I think it was a very, very strong threat from the president of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a ceasefire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” she said at a Wednesday White House press briefing. Callers jam congressional phone lines As they press their case against Trump, Democrats are responding to the worries of their own base and constituents. Congressional offices were bombarded with phone calls and emails this week, largely from people alarmed by the president’s rhetoric. In the House, the office of Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., received a “ton” of calls and emails Monday and Tuesday, mostly about Iran but also about impeaching Trump or removing him by deploying the 25th Amendment, said one aide who was not authorized to discuss the internal office situation and insisted on anonymity. When her district staffers in the state office took a break Tuesday, they returned to 75 voicemails on Iran an hour later, the aide said. “My office phones have not stopped ringing,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., at a press conference in Portland, urging House colleagues to immediately return to Washington. Dexter’s office received more calls on Tuesday, 257, than it has ever received in a 24-hour period since the first-term lawmaker’s team began keeping track. The groundswell appeared to be organic, rather than an orchestrated campaign to pressure lawmakers to act. While outside groups have been circulating some discussion points, including the legal details around invoking the 25th Amendment, there has not been an organized effort to flood the congressional offices with a strategic message, said one Democratic strategist familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss the private conversations. It was simply the “horror” of what Trump was saying, the strategist said, and the scale of the president’s threats, that appeared to have sparked the mobilization. On the political right, several prominent figures including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also suggested Trump should be removed from office through the 25th Amendment. Will Democrats make an impeachment push? Democrats twice impeached Trump for actions taken during his first term, but he was acquitted each time. They have tried to avoid such debates for the last 16 months as they tried to center their midterm message on kitchen table issues rather than opposing a president who narrowly won the popular vote. Republicans also have the majority in the House and have easily fended off two previous efforts to impeach Trump in his second term. A significant number of Democrats have either joined with Republicans or voted “present” as the House blocked impeachment resolutions sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas. Then came Trump’s threat on Tuesday morning to wipe out “an entire civilization.” “Temporary ceasefire or not, Trump already committed an impeachable offense. Congress needs to get back to work and remove him from office before he does more damage to our country and the world,” said Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a veteran of the war in Iraq. It’s unclear how House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries will handle the demands for another impeachment push. But Democratic leaders are holding a call on Friday with members of the House Judiciary Committee that is focused on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment.” Standing on the Capitol steps Thursday, Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., said she supports impeachment, but nevertheless hit the brakes on it for now, as the Democrats are in the minority. Instead, she called on Republicans to stand up to Trump’s threats, including by invoking the 25th Amendment. She predicted the imperative to remove Trump from office could only grow as negotiators navigate a fragile framework for a peace deal. Dean and other Democrats criticized the plan as “chaotic” and unworkable. Yet Dean said Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization should have already been enough. “The president brought the entire globe to watch his madness,” she said. The post Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats appeared first on The Dispatch.
Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats to wipe out Iran, “a whole civilization,” ended the restraint that Democrats have mostly practiced when it comes to questions of removing him from office in his second term. By the dozens, Democrats came out to say that Trump should no longer serve in the White House, either through the impeachment process or the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that a president is no longer able to perform the job. While Trump eventually pulled back on his threat and agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the episode highlighted the growing demands for Democrats to oppose the Republican president in the strongest possible terms. Calls about Iran flooded into congressional offices, lawmakers said. The breadth of the Democratic pushback underscored the gravity of Trump’s apocalyptic threat to a country of more than 91 million people. It also served to raise the domestic political stakes for a conflict that is far from over. The Trump administration faces mounting calls to testify about the war and justify its demands for hundreds of billions of dollars in new military spending. “We cannot excuse what the president said as a negotiating tactic,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat told reporters at the Capitol Thursday. “It is important that even though we were able to get this ceasefire, which I pray holds, that we hold this president accountable for what he threatened because threatening genocide is not just against international law, it’s against our federal law, too,” she added. Still, Democratic leaders and many moderates in the party have steered clear of endorsing impeachment, and any attempt to remove Trump from office is doomed to fail so long as Republicans control Congress. In the near term, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are instead pushing Republicans to join them and pass legislation that would force Trump to get congressional approval before carrying out any more attacks on Iran. A few Democrats attempted during a brief session of the House on Thursday to pass what’s known as a war powers resolution on Iran, but Republicans, who control the chamber, did not acknowledge their request. “We need Speaker Johnson to call us into session,” said Democratic Rep Emily Randall of Washington. “The American people deserve that.” At the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended Trump’s rhetoric as effective. “I think it was a very, very strong threat from the president of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a ceasefire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” she said at a Wednesday White House press briefing. Callers jam congressional phone lines As they press their case against Trump, Democrats are responding to the worries of their own base and constituents. Congressional offices were bombarded with phone calls and emails this week, largely from people alarmed by the president’s rhetoric. In the House, the office of Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., received a “ton” of calls and emails Monday and Tuesday, mostly about Iran but also about impeaching Trump or removing him by deploying the 25th Amendment, said one aide who was not authorized to discuss the internal office situation and insisted on anonymity. When her district staffers in the state office took a break Tuesday, they returned to 75 voicemails on Iran an hour later, the aide said. “My office phones have not stopped ringing,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., at a press conference in Portland, urging House colleagues to immediately return to Washington. Dexter’s office received more calls on Tuesday, 257, than it has ever received in a 24-hour period since the first-term lawmaker’s team began keeping track. The groundswell appeared to be organic, rather than an orchestrated campaign to pressure lawmakers to act. While outside groups have been circulating some discussion points, including the legal details around invoking the 25th Amendment, there has not been an organized effort to flood the congressional offices with a strategic message, said one Democratic strategist familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss the private conversations. It was simply the “horror” of what Trump was saying, the strategist said, and the scale of the president’s threats, that appeared to have sparked the mobilization. On the political right, several prominent figures including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also suggested Trump should be removed from office through the 25th Amendment. Will Democrats make an impeachment push? Democrats twice impeached Trump for actions taken during his first term, but he was acquitted each time. They have tried to avoid such debates for the last 16 months as they tried to center their midterm message on kitchen table issues rather than opposing a president who narrowly won the popular vote. Republicans also have the majority in the House and have easily fended off two previous efforts to impeach Trump in his second term. A significant number of Democrats have either joined with Republicans or voted “present” as the House blocked impeachment resolutions sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas. Then came Trump’s threat on Tuesday morning to wipe out “an entire civilization.” “Temporary ceasefire or not, Trump already committed an impeachable offense. Congress needs to get back to work and remove him from office before he does more damage to our country and the world,” said Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a veteran of the war in Iraq. It’s unclear how House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries will handle the demands for another impeachment push. But Democratic leaders are holding a call on Friday with members of the House Judiciary Committee that is focused on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment.” Standing on the Capitol steps Thursday, Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., said she supports impeachment, but nevertheless hit the brakes on it for now, as the Democrats are in the minority. Instead, she called on Republicans to stand up to Trump’s threats, including by invoking the 25th Amendment. She predicted the imperative to remove Trump from office could only grow as negotiators navigate a fragile framework for a peace deal. Dean and other Democrats criticized the plan as “chaotic” and unworkable. Yet Dean said Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization should have already been enough. “The president brought the entire globe to watch his madness,” she said. The post Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats appeared first on The Dispatch.
Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats to wipe out Iran, “a whole civilization,” ended the restraint that Democrats have mostly practiced when it comes to questions of removing him from office in his second term. By the dozens, Democrats came out to say that Trump should no longer serve in the White House, either through the impeachment process or the 25th Amendment, which allows the vice president and the Cabinet to declare that a president is no longer able to perform the job. While Trump eventually pulled back on his threat and agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, the episode highlighted the growing demands for Democrats to oppose the Republican president in the strongest possible terms. Calls about Iran flooded into congressional offices, lawmakers said. The breadth of the Democratic pushback underscored the gravity of Trump’s apocalyptic threat to a country of more than 91 million people. It also served to raise the domestic political stakes for a conflict that is far from over. The Trump administration faces mounting calls to testify about the war and justify its demands for hundreds of billions of dollars in new military spending. “We cannot excuse what the president said as a negotiating tactic,” Rep. Sara Jacobs, a California Democrat told reporters at the Capitol Thursday. “It is important that even though we were able to get this ceasefire, which I pray holds, that we hold this president accountable for what he threatened because threatening genocide is not just against international law, it’s against our federal law, too,” she added. Still, Democratic leaders and many moderates in the party have steered clear of endorsing impeachment, and any attempt to remove Trump from office is doomed to fail so long as Republicans control Congress. In the near term, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are instead pushing Republicans to join them and pass legislation that would force Trump to get congressional approval before carrying out any more attacks on Iran. A few Democrats attempted during a brief session of the House on Thursday to pass what’s known as a war powers resolution on Iran, but Republicans, who control the chamber, did not acknowledge their request. “We need Speaker Johnson to call us into session,” said Democratic Rep Emily Randall of Washington. “The American people deserve that.” At the White House, press secretary Karoline Leavitt has defended Trump’s rhetoric as effective. “I think it was a very, very strong threat from the president of the United States that led the Iranian regime to cave to their knees and ask for a ceasefire and agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz,” she said at a Wednesday White House press briefing. Callers jam congressional phone lines As they press their case against Trump, Democrats are responding to the worries of their own base and constituents. Congressional offices were bombarded with phone calls and emails this week, largely from people alarmed by the president’s rhetoric. In the House, the office of Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., received a “ton” of calls and emails Monday and Tuesday, mostly about Iran but also about impeaching Trump or removing him by deploying the 25th Amendment, said one aide who was not authorized to discuss the internal office situation and insisted on anonymity. When her district staffers in the state office took a break Tuesday, they returned to 75 voicemails on Iran an hour later, the aide said. “My office phones have not stopped ringing,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., at a press conference in Portland, urging House colleagues to immediately return to Washington. Dexter’s office received more calls on Tuesday, 257, than it has ever received in a 24-hour period since the first-term lawmaker’s team began keeping track. The groundswell appeared to be organic, rather than an orchestrated campaign to pressure lawmakers to act. While outside groups have been circulating some discussion points, including the legal details around invoking the 25th Amendment, there has not been an organized effort to flood the congressional offices with a strategic message, said one Democratic strategist familiar with the situation who insisted on anonymity to discuss the private conversations. It was simply the “horror” of what Trump was saying, the strategist said, and the scale of the president’s threats, that appeared to have sparked the mobilization. On the political right, several prominent figures including former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, also suggested Trump should be removed from office through the 25th Amendment. Will Democrats make an impeachment push? Democrats twice impeached Trump for actions taken during his first term, but he was acquitted each time. They have tried to avoid such debates for the last 16 months as they tried to center their midterm message on kitchen table issues rather than opposing a president who narrowly won the popular vote. Republicans also have the majority in the House and have easily fended off two previous efforts to impeach Trump in his second term. A significant number of Democrats have either joined with Republicans or voted “present” as the House blocked impeachment resolutions sponsored by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas. Then came Trump’s threat on Tuesday morning to wipe out “an entire civilization.” “Temporary ceasefire or not, Trump already committed an impeachable offense. Congress needs to get back to work and remove him from office before he does more damage to our country and the world,” said Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a veteran of the war in Iraq. It’s unclear how House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries will handle the demands for another impeachment push. But Democratic leaders are holding a call on Friday with members of the House Judiciary Committee that is focused on “Trump administration accountability and the 25th Amendment.” Standing on the Capitol steps Thursday, Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., said she supports impeachment, but nevertheless hit the brakes on it for now, as the Democrats are in the minority. Instead, she called on Republicans to stand up to Trump’s threats, including by invoking the 25th Amendment. She predicted the imperative to remove Trump from office could only grow as negotiators navigate a fragile framework for a peace deal. Dean and other Democrats criticized the plan as “chaotic” and unworkable. Yet Dean said Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization should have already been enough. “The president brought the entire globe to watch his madness,” she said. The post Democrats grow bolder on talk about removing Trump from office after his Iran threats appeared first on The Dispatch.
DHS pauses new immigrant warehouse purchases amid review of Noem-era contracts
WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is pausing the purchase of new warehouses intended to house immigrants as it scrutinizes all contracts signed under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, according to a senior Homeland Security official. The development comes just days after the new Homeland Security Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, was sworn in last week to lead a department that was steeped in controversy during Noem’s tenure but also central to President Trump’s mass deportation agenda. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. News of the pause was first reported by NBC News. The official also said that warehouse purchases that were already made are also being scrutinized. When asked about reports of the pause, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that “as with any transition, we are reviewing agency policies and proposals.” The Department also noted that Mullin said during his confirmation hearing that he wanted to “work with community leaders” and “be good partners.” Mullin inherited a $38.3 billion plan to boost detention capacity to 92,000 beds by acquiring eight large-scale detention centers, capable of housing 7,000 to 10,000 detainees each, and 16 smaller regional processing centers. The plan was hatched during Noem’s tenure but immediately ran into intense opposition around the country by residents and communities opposed to such large Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in their neighborhoods. Many objected on moral grounds to ICE’s presence in their neighborhoods, while others questioned whether the facilities would be a drain on local resources, such as sewer and water systems. So far, 11 warehouses have been purchased in Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah, with the federal government spending a combined $1.074 billion. But lawsuits are pending in three of the states. Meanwhile, the capacity of at least one warehouse has been scaled back. Plans initially called for a warehouse in the Phoenix suburb of Surprise to be used as a 1,500-bed processing site, but Homeland Security now plans to cap occupied beds at 542, Surprise Mayor Kevin Sartor said during a news conference on Monday. In many cases, mayors, county commissioners, governors and members of Congress learned about ICE’s ambitions only after the agency bought or leased space for detainees, leading to shock and frustration even in areas that have backed Trump. The warehouse plan ran into challenges from the start. Eight deals were scuttled in places like Kansas City, Missouri, when owners decided not to sell. Pressed on the lack of information during his confirmation hearing, Mullin acknowledged there had been issues. “We’ve got to protect the homeland and we’re going to do that,” Mullin said. “But obviously we want to work with community leaders.” Mullin, who took over and expanded his family’s plumbing business before representing Oklahoma in the U.S. House and Senate, said that “one thing I do know is construction.” He noted that most municipalities don’t have the capacity in their infrastructure for waste and water. “So, it’s important that we’re talking to the communities and if we’re having additional needs, we can work with the cities,” he said at his confirmation hearing earlier this month. The post DHS pauses new immigrant warehouse purchases amid review of Noem-era contracts appeared first on The Dispatch.
DHS pauses new immigrant warehouse purchases amid review of Noem-era contracts
WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is pausing the purchase of new warehouses intended to house immigrants as it scrutinizes all contracts signed under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, according to a senior Homeland Security official. The development comes just days after the new Homeland Security Secretary, Markwayne Mullin, was sworn in last week to lead a department that was steeped in controversy during Noem’s tenure but also central to President Trump’s mass deportation agenda. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. News of the pause was first reported by NBC News. The official also said that warehouse purchases that were already made are also being scrutinized. When asked about reports of the pause, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that “as with any transition, we are reviewing agency policies and proposals.” The Department also noted that Mullin said during his confirmation hearing that he wanted to “work with community leaders” and “be good partners.” Mullin inherited a $38.3 billion plan to boost detention capacity to 92,000 beds by acquiring eight large-scale detention centers, capable of housing 7,000 to 10,000 detainees each, and 16 smaller regional processing centers. The plan was hatched during Noem’s tenure but immediately ran into intense opposition around the country by residents and communities opposed to such large Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in their neighborhoods. Many objected on moral grounds to ICE’s presence in their neighborhoods, while others questioned whether the facilities would be a drain on local resources, such as sewer and water systems. So far, 11 warehouses have been purchased in Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah, with the federal government spending a combined $1.074 billion. But lawsuits are pending in three of the states. Meanwhile, the capacity of at least one warehouse has been scaled back. Plans initially called for a warehouse in the Phoenix suburb of Surprise to be used as a 1,500-bed processing site, but Homeland Security now plans to cap occupied beds at 542, Surprise Mayor Kevin Sartor said during a news conference on Monday. In many cases, mayors, county commissioners, governors and members of Congress learned about ICE’s ambitions only after the agency bought or leased space for detainees, leading to shock and frustration even in areas that have backed Trump. The warehouse plan ran into challenges from the start. Eight deals were scuttled in places like Kansas City, Missouri, when owners decided not to sell. Pressed on the lack of information during his confirmation hearing, Mullin acknowledged there had been issues. “We’ve got to protect the homeland and we’re going to do that,” Mullin said. “But obviously we want to work with community leaders.” Mullin, who took over and expanded his family’s plumbing business before representing Oklahoma in the U.S. House and Senate, said that “one thing I do know is construction.” He noted that most municipalities don’t have the capacity in their infrastructure for waste and water. “So, it’s important that we’re talking to the communities and if we’re having additional needs, we can work with the cities,” he said at his confirmation hearing earlier this month. The post DHS pauses new immigrant warehouse purchases amid review of Noem-era contracts appeared first on The Dispatch.