Texas Weekly Online

Texas-trans-white
Menu
Menu

Year: 2025

GOP senators: Congress should vote on Trump’s potential Iran nuclear deal

GOP senators: Congress should vote on Trump’s potential Iran nuclear deal

A pair of hawkish, Trump-supporting Senate Republicans say that any “lasting” Iran nuclear deal would need to be approved by Congress, ideally through a two-thirds majority treaty vote.  But scoring a two-thirds majority in the Senate for treaty ratification would require Iran to fulfill a series of steep demands. In addition to getting rid of all of its enriched uranium and centrifuges, GOP lawmakers say it would need to dismantle its ballistic missile program and cease all support for terrorist groups across the Middle East. “If they want the most durable and lasting kind of deal, then they want to bring it to the Senate and have it voted on as a treaty,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said in response to a question from Fox News Digital.  “That was one reason why President Obama’s deal was so weak,” Cotton went on. “An agreement between the American president, whoever he or she may be, and a foreign leader, can be reversed by future presidents, which President Trump rightly did seven years ago today.” TRUMP TARGETS IRANIAN OIL WITH SANCTIONS, INCREASING PRESSURE ON ISLAMIC REPUBLIC TO MAKE DEAL ON NUKES In 2015, Cotton led an open letter signed by Senate Republicans to Iranian leaders warning that any nuclear agreement not approved by Congress could be undone by a future administration. The move was widely viewed as a direct effort to undermine President Barack Obama’s ongoing negotiations. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., echoed the call for congressional oversight, saying that “at a minimum” any deal must go through the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA), which passed Congress in 2015 with resounding bipartisan support and guarantees lawmakers a chance to review any accord reached with Tehran. Graham said he had told Secretary of State Marco Rubio there was “no way” to get 67 votes to ratify a treaty agreement without Iran totally dismantling its nuclear and missile programs and support for terrorism.  WHITE HOUSE CALLS YEMEN CEASEFIRE A ‘WIN’ – EXPERTS WARN HOUTHIS MAY NOT HOLD THE LINE The senators also drew a parallel with the so-called 123 agreements – the legal frameworks that govern U.S. civil nuclear cooperation with foreign nations. These agreements require strict safeguards to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. “It’s also customary in some cases for the Congress, not just the Senate, to pass ordinary legislation that supports the so-called 123 agreements,” Cotton noted, suggesting that any comprehensive deal with Iran should be treated with similar legislative rigor. Cotton and Graham spoke to reporters after introducing a resolution outlining “acceptable” terms of an Iran deal, including total cessation of uranium enrichment.  According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has amassed enough highly enriched uranium to potentially build several nuclear weapons if it chose to do so – though U.S. intelligence assessments maintain that Tehran has not yet made a decision to weaponize. Both U.S. and Israeli officials have ramped up their threats against the regime. Trump has made clear that if talks go south, the U.S. will engage in direct military action to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.  Graham suggested the regime only has “weeks” to acquiesce to a deal.  “We’re not talking about long, protracted negotiations,” the South Carolina Republican said. “We’re talking weeks, not months, not years. The potential of Iranian breakout looms large here. Israel’s desire to bring closure to this issue looms large here.”

Chief Justice Roberts doubles down on defense of courts as SCOTUS gears up to hear key Trump cases

Chief Justice Roberts doubles down on defense of courts as SCOTUS gears up to hear key Trump cases

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used a public appearance Wednesday to stress the importance of an independent judiciary, doubling down on defense of the courts under fire by President Donald Trump and his allies, who have accused so-called “activist judges” of overstepping their bounds. Asked during a fireside chat event in Buffalo, New York, about judicial independence, Roberts responded in no uncertain terms that the role of the federal courts is to “decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.” That role, he added, “does require a degree of independence.” BOASBERG GRILLS DOJ OVER REMARKS FROM TRUMP AND NOEM, FLOATS MOVING MIGRANTS TO GITMO IN ACTION-PACKED HEARING Roberts’ remarks are not new. But they come as Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges who have paused or halted key parts of the president’s agenda. (Some of the rulings they’ve taken issue with came from judges appointed by Trump in his first term.) The Supreme Court is slated to hear a number of high-profile cases and emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration in the next few months, cases that are all but certain to keep the high court in the spotlight for the foreseeable future. Among them are Trump’s executive orders banning transgender service members from serving in the U.S. military, restoring fired federal employees to their jobs and a case about whether children whose parents illegally entered the U.S. and were born here should be granted citizenship. Oral arguments for that last case kick off next week. TRUMP-ALIGNED GROUP SUES CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IN EFFORT TO RESTRICT POWER OF THE COURTS Just hours before Roberts spoke to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo, a high-stakes hearing played out in federal court in Washington, D.C. There, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg spent more than an hour grilling Justice Department lawyers about their use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport hundreds of migrants to El Salvador earlier this year.  Boasberg’s March 15 order that temporarily blocked Trump’s use of the law to send migrants to a Salvadoran prison sparked ire from the White House and in Congress, where some Trump allies had previously floated calls for impeachment. Roberts, who put out a rare public statement at the time rebuking calls to impeach Boasberg or any federal judges, doubled down on that in Wednesday’s remarks. “Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with a decision,” Roberts said, adding that he had already spoken about that in his earlier statement. In the statement, sent by Roberts shortly after Trump floated the idea of impeaching Boasberg, said that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” he said in the statement. 

Trump considers tax hike on Americans making $2.5 million or more per year

Trump considers tax hike on Americans making .5 million or more per year

President Donald Trump is considering a small tax increase for wealthy Americans to help pay for his priorities to boost the middle and working classes. A source familiar with Trump’s thinking told Fox News Digital that Trump is considering allowing the rate on individuals making $2.5 million or more to increase by 2.6%, from 37% to 39.6%. He quietly pushed Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on the idea in a phone call on Wednesday, two people familiar with conversations told Fox News Digital. It comes as Republicans work on a massive piece of legislation advancing Trump’s priorities on taxes, border security, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt, which the president has dubbed his “big, beautiful bill.” MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE Differing projections show the bill is likely to add trillions of dollars to the country’s deficit over the next 10 years, so fiscal hawks are looking for ways to mitigate that and set up America for a less bloated government down the line by pairing the new priorities with deep spending cuts elsewhere. The tax portion of the bill is expected to be the costliest portion.  Republicans are hoping to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) as well as pay for newer Trump priorities like eliminating taxes on tips, overtime wages and retirees’ Social Security. TCJA previously lowered taxes for the highest bracket from 39.6% to 37%, but that’s set to expire at the end of 2025. Trump wants to restore that top bracket, albeit for people making significantly more money than the current threshold. The current top tax bracket is $609,350 for single income earners. The source familiar with Trump’s thinking said doing so would help pay for his “massive” tax cuts for the middle and working classes, as well as protect Medicaid coverage for millions of Americans. Punchbowl News first reported details of the Trump-Johnson phone call. BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT’S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY It’s not clear yet what Republicans will decide, or even if they will ultimately decide to raise taxes on the highest earners – but details are expected to emerge in the coming days. The Ways & Means Committee, the House’s tax-writing panel, is expected to meet on Tuesday afternoon to advance that portion of Trump’s bill. Talks about potential tax hikes on the wealthy have triggered a deep rift within the Republican Party.  Mainstream conservatives have balked at discussions of raising rates on anyone, arguing it would have a negative impact on job creators, while populist and more moderate Republicans have floated such ideas in order to pay for Trump’s priorities to benefit the middle and working classes. “Raising taxes on America’s highest earners and biggest job creators makes no sense,” Marc Short, a former chief of staff to ex-Vice President Mike Pence and a key part of TCJA negotiations, told Fox News Digital. “I don’t understand why there are some inside the current administration who are pushing Congress to raise the top rate, because again, these are America’s job creators.” Other Republicans told Fox News Digital in recent weeks that they believe the idea could be popular, however. “I’m open-minded to what the president or the treasury secretary may have in mind. And I would want to see some numbers behind it and how it would have an effect on the economy,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., told Fox News Digital in late April. “What I’ve heard from people in the upper tax brackets is, you know, they’re willing to pay more as long as they know that it’s paying the debt down. They don’t want to see it go toward more spending.” Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and Johnson’s office for comment.