Shutdown odds grow amid GOP infighting

Published

2 years ago

June 15, 2023

admin

The decision by House Republicans to write spending bills below the caps established in this month’s bipartisan debt ceiling deal sets the stage for a clash with Democrats in the Senate and White House — and heightens the odds of a government shutdown later in the year.

The debt limit legislation, negotiated between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), featured an agreement to set new top lines on discretionary spending over the next two fiscal years.

Yet McCarthy, under heavy pressure from his right flank, has since balked at those figures, arguing they’re not the target levels but merely represent a spending ceiling Congress cannot surpass. Behind Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Republicans intend to mark up their 2024 spending bills at lower, 2022 levels, estimated to cut an additional $120 billion in federal outlays.

Those cuts are a non-starter with Democrats, whose support will be needed to pass the appropriations bills into law and prevent a partial government shutdown on Oct. 1.

The dynamics set Congress on a collision course in September over the size and scope of government spending — a debate complicated by the conservative threat for McCarthy to hold the party line on deficit reduction or face a challenge to his Speakership.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the House minority leader, has said Democrats will oppose anything less than the agreed-upon debt ceiling levels. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said the GOP’s strategy “all but guarantees a shutdown.” And Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, delivered a similar warning, saying House Republicans will never win Democratic support for their spending cuts, but they might very well succeed in shuttering the government.

“The Senate is going to mark up to the deal that was made. And so House Republicans are going to completely make themselves irrelevant [and] make their members vote on these deep, deep cuts, and it has no possibility of becoming law,” Aguilar told reporters Tuesday in the Capitol.

The conservative threat to McCarthy’s power, he added, has created a situation where the tail is wagging the dog.

“These are the deals that Kevin McCarthy has to make in order to hold the gavel,” he said.

Muddling the issue is a disagreement between McCarthy and his conservative detractors over the precise nature of the concessions he made in January as he struggled to win their support for his Speakership. The hard-liners maintain McCarthy promised to fight for 2022 spending levels in 2024 and to refuse votes on any proposal above that level.

“That was the agreement in January: that the Speaker would not put legislation on the floor that exceeded 2022 spending levels,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Tuesday.

Yet McCarthy has disputed that account in no uncertain terms.

“We never promised we’re going to be all at ’22 levels. I said we would strive to get to the ’22 level, or the equivalent of that amount in cuts,” the Speaker said earlier in the month as he defended the debt ceiling deal from the conservative critics.

That legislation, dubbed the Financial Responsibility Act (FRA), included an incentive to Congress to pass all 12 regular appropriations bills in a timely manner. If the appropriations are not made by Jan. 1, then any continuing resolution (CR) would have to cap spending at 99 percent of current levels — a 1 percent across-the-board cut that would affect even military spending.

That threat is already spooking defense hawks, who are warning of the harm to national security in the age of great power competition, particularly with Russia and China. But a growing number of lawmakers appear increasingly resigned that a CR will be necessary, setting up yet another showdown between House Republicans and Senate Democrats.

“My guess is we’ll go ahead and pass the CR at the 99 percent level,” said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.). “And then if there’s a shutdown, it’ll be the Senate that shuts it down.”

But the Jan. 1 sequester date leaves some uncertainty about what would happen when the new fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

Some members of the House Appropriations Committee were already feeling the time crunch, and they now have even more pressure after Granger’s announcement on spending levels. Now, the House must quickly pass those bills, and the Democratic-controlled Senate — which is sure to reject the House GOP spending levels — will have to act.

“There is a prospect that we could be at an impasse come into September,” said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), a subcommittee chairman on the House Appropriations

“This governing majority of ours doesn’t need to be toying around with shutting down the government,” Womack.

McCarthy has also said he will not bring up any omnibus legislation that combines appropriations into one large package, further complicating the timeline. Congress has not passed all 12 regular appropriations bills on time since 1996.

Many hard-line conservatives, for their part, say they’re not threatening to force a government shutdown to get the spending levels they want — at least not yet.

“We’re trying to get on the same team, Republicans, to focus on spending cuts. I don’t think anybody wants a shutdown. I sure don’t,” said Gaetz.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), a more moderate member of the House Appropriations Committee, called discussion of a shutdown “a little premature.” Miami Mayor Francis Suarez announces GOP presidential campaign Police foil alleged mass shooting threat hours before Stanley Cup final

Yet others are downplaying the severity of a shutdown, arguing the nation’s soaring debt poses an even greater threat to the nation’s economic well-being.

“I’m not worried about a shutdown,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said. “The country’s going to be permanently shut down if we don’t get our spending under control. And I’m tired of hearing, ‘We’ll do it tomorrow.’

“We’re gonna do it now. Or attempt to.”

US

Donald Trump sending ‘top of the line’ weapons to support NATO in Ukraine war

Published

3 hours ago

July 15, 2025

admin

Donald Trump sending 'top of the line' weapons to support NATO in Ukraine war

Donald Trump has agreed to send “top of the line weapons” to NATO to support Ukraine – and threatened Russia with “severe” tariffs if it doesn’t agree to end the war.

Speaking with NATO secretary-general Mark Rutte during a meeting at the White House, the US president said: “We’ve made a deal today where we are going to be sending them weapons, and they’re going to be paying for them.

“This is billions of dollars worth of military equipment which is going to be purchased from the United States, going to NATO, and that’s going to be quickly distributed to the battlefield.”

Follow the latest here

Weapons being sent include surface-to-air Patriot missile systems and batteries, which Ukraine has asked for to defend itself from Russian air strikes.

Mr Trump also said he was “very unhappy” with Russia, and threatened “severe tariffs” of “about 100%” if there isn’t a deal to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days.

The White House added that the US would put “secondary sanctions” on countries that buy oil from Russia if an agreement was not reached.

Later on Monday, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Mr Trump and said he was “grateful” for the US president’s “readiness to help protect our people’s lives”.

After criticising Vladimir Putin’s “desire to drag it out”, he said he appreciated “preparing a new decision on Patriots for Ukraine” – and added Kyiv is “working on major defence agreements with America”.

It comes after weeks of frustration from Mr Trump over Mr Putin’s refusal to agree to an end to the conflict, with the Russian leader telling the US president he would “not back down” from Moscow’s goals in Ukraine at the start of the month.

During the briefing on Monday, Mr Trump said he had held calls with Mr Putin where he would think “that was a nice phone call”, but then “missiles are launched into Kyiv or some other city, and that happens three or four times”.

“I don’t want to say he’s an assassin, but he’s a tough guy,” he added.

Earlier this year, Mr Trump told Mr Zelenskyy “you’re gambling with World War Three” in a fiery White House meeting, and suggested Ukraine started the war against Russia as he sought to negotiate an end to the conflict.

After Mr Trump’s briefing, Russian senator Konstantin Kosachev said on Telegram: “If this is all that Trump had in mind to say about Ukraine today, then all the steam has gone out.”

Meanwhile, Mr Zelenskyy met with US special envoy Keith Kellogg in Kyiv, where they “discussed the path to peace” by “strengthening Ukraine’s air defence, joint production, and procurement of defence weapons in collaboration with Europe”.

He thanked both the envoy for the visit and Mr Trump “for the important signals of support and the positive decisions for both our countries”.

US

Trump is clearly fed up with Putin – but will his shift in tone force Russia to the negotiating table?

Published

3 hours ago

July 15, 2025

admin

Trump is clearly fed up with Putin - but will his shift in tone force Russia to the negotiating table?

As ever, there is confusion and key questions are left unanswered, but Donald Trump’s announcement on Ukraine and Russia today remains hugely significant.

His shift in tone and policy on Ukraine is stark. And his shift in tone (and perhaps policy) on Russia is huge.

Ever since Mr Trump returned to the White House he has flatly refused to side with Ukraine over the Russian invasion.

He has variously blamed Ukraine for the invasion and blamed Joe Biden for the invasion, but has never been willing to accept that Russia is the aggressor and that Ukraine has a legitimate right to defend itself.

Today, all that changed. In a clear signal that he is fed up with Vladimir Putin and now fully recognises the need to help Ukraine defend itself, he announced the US will dramatically increase weapons supplies to Kyiv.

But, in keeping with his transactional nature and in a reflection of the need to keep his isolationist “America-First” base on side, he has framed this policy shift as a multi-billion dollar “deal” in which America gains financially.

American weapons are to be “sold” to NATO partners in Europe who will then either transfer them to Ukraine or use them to bolster their own stockpiles as they transfer their own existing stocks to Kyiv.

“We’ve made a deal today,” the president said in the Oval Office. “We are going to be sending them weapons, and they are paying for them. We are manufacturing, they are going to be paying for it. Our meeting last month was very successful… these are wealthy nations.”

This appears to be a clever framing of the “deal”. Firstly, America has always benefited financially by supplying weapons to Ukraine because much of the investment has been in American factories, American jobs and American supply chains.

While the details are not entirely clear, the difference now appears to be that the weapons would be bought by the Europeans or by NATO as an alliance.

The Americans are the biggest contributor to NATO, and so if the alliance is buying the weapons, America too will be paying, in part, for the weapons it is selling.

However, if the weapons are being bought by individual NATO members to replenish their own stocks, then it may be the case that the US is not paying.

NATO officials referred all questions on this issue to the White House, which has not yet provided clarity to Sky News.

It is also not yet clear what type of weapons will be made available and whether it will include offensive, as well defensive, munitions.

A key element of the package will likely be Patriot missile batteries, 10 to 15 of which are believed to be currently in Europe.

Under this deal, it is understood that some of them will be added to the six or so batteries believed to be presently in Ukraine. New ones would then be purchased from US manufacturers to backfill European stocks. A similar arrangement may be used for other weapons.

The president also issued the Russian leader with an ultimatum, saying that Putin had 50 days to make a peace deal or else face 100% “secondary tariffs”. It’s thought this refers to a plan to tariff, or sanction, third countries that supply Russia with weapons and buy Russian oil.

This, the Americans hope, will force those countries to apply pressure on Russia.

But the 50-day kicking of the can down the road also gives Russia space to prevaricate. So, a few words of caution: first, the Russians are masters of prevarication. Second, Trump tends to let deadlines slip. And third, we all know Trump can flip-flop on his position repeatedly.

Maybe the most revealing aspect of all this came when a reporter asked Mr Trump: “How far are you willing to go if Putin sends more bombs in the coming days?”

“Don’t ask me questions like that…”

Mr Trump doesn’t really know what to do if Mr Putin continues to take him for a ride.

Mr Biden, before him, supplied Ukraine with the weapons to continue fighting.

If Mr Trump wants to end this, he may need to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to win.

But that would prolong, or even escalate, a war he wants to end now.

There’s the predicament.

Technology

Nvidia says U.S. government will allow it to resume H20 AI chip sales to China

Published

3 hours ago

July 15, 2025

admin

Nvidia says U.S. government will allow it to resume H20 AI chip sales to China

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang attends a roundtable discussion at the Viva Technology conference dedicated to innovation and startups at Porte de Versailles exhibition center in Paris on June 11, 2025.

Sarah Meyssonnier | Reuters

Nvidia announced Tuesday that it hopes to resume sales of its H20 general processing units to clients in China, saying that the U.S. government had assured the company would be granted licenses.

Nvidia’s sales of the H20 chips, which had been designed specifically to keep them out of export controls on China, were halted in April.

“The U.S. government has assured NVIDIA that licenses will be granted, and NVIDIA hopes to start deliveries soon,” the company said in a statement.

This comes against the backdrop of a preliminary trade deal between Washington and Beijing last month that sought China to resume rare earth exports and the U.S. to relax tech export controls.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang in recent months has ramped up his lobbying against export controls, arguing that they inhibited American tech leadership. In May, Huang said chip restrictions had already cut Nvidia’s China market share nearly in half.

Huang also announced a new “fully compliant” GPU, NVIDIA RTX PRO, saying it was ideal for smart factories and logistics.

The potential change in U.S. stance follows a meeting between Huang and U.S. President Donald Trump last week.

In his meeting with Trump and U.S. policymakers, Huang had reaffirmed Nvidia’s support for the administration’s job creation and onshoring efforts, as well as the aim for America to lead in global AI, the company said.

Meanwhile, in Beijing, it was confirmed that Huang has met with government and industry officials to discuss the benefits of AI and ways for researchers to advance safe and secure AI for the benefit of all.