budget

GOP-appointed judge smacks down Trump admin for hiding government spending: report

Law & Crime reports a federal judge called out President Donald Trump's administration for violating a court order demanding access to hidden spending plans.

In win for transparency groups, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, first appointed by President Ronald Reagan and later by Presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton, had to school the Trump administration over what it could and could not hide from the public.

Last year, Sullivan ordered the administration to "stop violating the law" and restore public access to the "Public Apportionment Database," which Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought ordered removed last March.

At the judge’s order, the database was back online by last August, but plaintiffs noticed documents in the database contained references to an "undisclosed spend plan," according to an eight-page motion to enforce filed last September. Access to the information in the footnotes, they argued, is just as legally binding as the original document the judge ordered released.

Law & Crime reports Sullivan had to give the Trump administration a crash course in “remedial legal education” by citing from Black's Law Dictionary to explain why the protesting administration had to cough up the info. The source of a “legally binding footnote,” the judge concluded, must be disclosed.

But it turns out that the Trump administration — much like President Donald Trump himself — can’t seem to keep the name of former president Joe Biden out of its mouth. While Trump is more than happy to keep blaming Biden for the Trump economy, Middle East instability and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he has also leaned on Biden for excuses. In the case of the OMB redactions, his administration essentially argued that Biden was guilty of doing the same thing.

“The government, for its part, claimed that the Biden administration similarly did not provide access to such spending plans,” Law & Crime reports, but Sullivan agreed with plaintiffs that the Biden administration's database documents "rarely" even contained such references.

“The court rejected the argument about the Biden precedent out of hand. In turn, the court also rejected a related defense claim that the plaintiffs waived their argument because the Biden administration established the practice of referencing undisclosed spend plans,” Law & Crime reported.

“[B]ecause Defendants illegally removed the database, Plaintiffs could not have known that OMB is now with significantly greater frequency incorporating spend plans by reference into apportionment documents," Sullivan said. "Plaintiffs have not waived this argument because until the illegally removed database was restored, Plaintiffs could not have known that documents 'required to be disclosed by the 2022 and 2023 Acts' were missing."

The decision counts as a win for the open records advocate Protect Democracy Project, who sued the OMB over the hidden spending plan.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Red state’s infrastructure 'falling down' as Trump economy strikes: report

Tennessee’s GOP-imposed pay-as-you-go system for funding road projects is smacking hard against $58 billion in planned road construction projects this year. Meanwhile, new financial demands imposed by the Republican Congress and President Donald Trump are leaving state leaders with no long-term strategy to fund them, according to state transportation officials.

The Tennessean reports anti-tax Republicans consider debt anathema to budget decisions. But Transportation Commissioner Will Reid says that the state's zero-debt system is unable to keep up with a growing deluge of highway and bridge needs.

“It’s kind of like the boy at the dike that’s got cracks in it,” said Reid. “We used to be sticking fingers and toes wherever we could stop the leaking. Well, the reality is, unless you fix the dam, you’re eventually going to run out of fingers and toes.”

Rep. Ronnie Glynn, D-Clarksville offered a similar metaphor: “… [Y]our house is falling down but you refuse to take out a loan because you don’t want to mess with your credit – and then your house is on the ground. You have nowhere to live.”

But lawmakers may have to raise taxes or fees on residents to make ends meet this year thanks to budget decisions on the federal level. “The state’s revenue is no longer booming … and new costs of administering federal programs have been passed down from the federal government after cuts by the Trump administration last year,” the Tennessean reports.

Tennessee Republicans, who have held a trifecta over the state since 2011, already know they are facing “stagnant revenue and federal funding cuts that shifted costs to states,” the Tennessean reports, adding that state economists predict revenue growth won't keep up with projected inflation.

“On top of tight state revenue, lawmakers will have to find funding for new costs passed to states due to federal cuts in President Donald Trump’s budget reform package,” the Tennessean said. “For example, Tennessee will be on the hook to pay $97 million in administrative costs this year previously covered by the federal government to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program running.”

“$97 million seems like a lot of money to administer a program,” Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton told the Tennessean. “I don’t understand that.”

Read the Tennessean report and relevant links here.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Tax preparers for wealthy customers claim 'a lot of happy clients' because of Trump

Tax preparers with wealthy clients are having a good time this year thanks to President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful bill, according to NPR.

New York-based tax and estate consultant Gary Phillips says as tax season approaches, the mood is upbeat among his clients because of the extension of tax breaks approved by Trump and the Republican-led Congress mainly benefit “high-net-worth and high-income people.”

"We have a lot of happy clients," says Phillips, who handles taxes, trusts and estates at Cole Schotz P.C. "There's more certainty now."

NPR reports the changes approved by lawmakers in July “lock in a friendlier tax climate for affluent Americans with lower rates and generous exemptions.” And while middle-income households may see some modest relief, “the lion's share of the benefits will flow to those with substantial earnings, investment income, or large estates.”

Married couples filing jointly and making more than $200,000 or $250,000 is “around the point where a lot of these provisions start to kick in,” but that’s really just the start, with much bigger savings waiting further up the tax bracket.

Zane Sanchez, a tax manager with the accounting and business advisory firm Snyder Cohn, told NPR a pass-through exemption for business-owners, which Congress made permanent, is “a major win for entrepreneurs and high-net-worth people” by allowing income from businesses to "pass through" to the owner's personal tax return, reducing the top tax rate for qualifying business income from 37 percent to 29.6 percent.

Meanwhile, Tony Nitti, a national tax partner at EY Private, which focuses on advising entrepreneurs, private businesses, and their owners, said Trump’s “bonus depreciation” tax incentive allows businesses to immediately deduct 100 percent of the cost of qualifying assets. This includes machinery, computers, equipment and vehicles, instead of depreciating them over several years.

"Not everybody can go out and buy a private jet — but if you can, now that private jet is deductible in year one," Nitti told NPR.

Wealthy Americans will also get the benefit of a higher lifetime exemption for estate and gift taxes thanks to Trump and Congress making permanent a $15 million per individual exemption and a $30 million exemption for married couples — up from the previous $13.99 million and $27.98 million limits. They also substantially increased the federal deduction for state and local taxes from $10,000 to $40,000.

But NPR reports another benefit for the wealthy is an increased exclusion for capital gains from the sale of qualified small business stock (QSBS) issued after July 4, 2025. The previous cap of $10 million has been raised to $15 million for companies with assets up to $75 million.

If investors hold stock for five years they can receive the full 100 percent exclusion, and Phillips said if you sell $10 million of qualifying stock with the entire amount treated as a taxable gain, "you wouldn't owe any federal capital gains tax.”

“That's about a $2 million savings right there," Phillips said.

Read the NPR report at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Not buying that': CNN host corners House speaker as polls show key Trump bill underwater

House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN he does not believe multiple polls showing President Donald Trump’s signature budget bill deeply underwater.

“Our own Harry Enten, who is the numbers guy, … he put together some numbers and said it's among the most unpopular laws passed since 1990, less so than the affordable care act, the bank bailout and the Republican tax bill of 2017,” said CNN anchor John Berman.

“I'm not surprised by these numbers at all,” answered Johnson, “because there's been an all-out assault and effort by Democrats and the mainstream media to, frankly, misinform people about what's in the bill.”

Johnson insisted that “when they take the same polls of the individual provisions of that giant piece of legislation, they're wildly popular.”

But Berman showed Johnson polls showing that was incorrect.

While poll respondents showed approval for defense spending and no taxes on tops, “everything else they asked about was underwater,” Berman told him. “[Killing the] EV tax credit: Underwater. Boost Medicare requirements: Underwater. Increase border wall spending: Underwater. Increase detention center spending: Underwater. [Killing] solar wind incentives: Sent them underwater. Reduced SNAP benefits: Underwater. et cetera. et cetera.”

“I'm not — look — I’m not buying that,” Johnson said. “Polls can be, you know, manipulated. We have seen a string of polls over and over and over that many of those — every one of those provisions, in fact, that you said — are popular. … “I've been in town halls around the country over this break with 12 states in the last week. and people are standing and applauding for what we've done.”

News reports more commonly show Republicans fleeing constituents at town halls, however, primarily over their passage of Trump’s budget bill.

“I tell you, the facts are going to speak for themselves,” Johnson said. “The results and the things that people experience, and that's why we're excited about the midterms coming up. we're going to win this.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Good Luck to JD Vance': CNN data guru says Trump’s signature bill is worst in decades

CNN survey analyst Harry Enten crunched the numbers and predicted a hard road ahead for Vice President JD Vance selling President Donald Trump's signature budget bill.

“Yeah. good luck to JD Vance trying to sell this bill. That's all I can say,” said Enten. “Look, even among Republican voters, it's far less popular than Donald Trump is. But look at voters, overall, right? I think this gives you a real understanding of what's exactly cooking.”

Enten examined a slew of polls and found Trump’s Big Beautiful budget bill to be woefully unpopular on every one.

“On every. Single. Poll — it is underwater,” Enten told CNN host Erin Burnett. “When the best you can do on the net favorable rating is minus ten points, you know it's an unpopular bill. Minus ten, minus 14, minus 19, minus 22. I have not seen a single reputable poll in which this thing is anything more popular than being 10 points underwater. Truthfully, as I said at the top here: JD Vance, good luck to you, buddy.”

“But one group of voters that Trump needs to watch in particular is really not happy,” said Burnett.

“No, no. That's independents. I mean, look, we know that elections are won and lost in the center of the electorate. You know what the favorable rating is in this bill among independents? It's 30 percent. What is the unfavorable rating? Look at this — 60 percent! That is a net favorable rating among independents of -39 percentage points,” Enten said. “If this is what the election is about, you can wave adios, amigos, goodbye to that Republican majority in the House. And you may be able to say adios, amigos, goodbye to that Republican majority in the Senate.”

“Well, tell me something else I don’t know,” challenged Burnett.

“I'll tell you something else that you don't know," Enten said. "I went back, and I looked at every single major piece of legislation that was passed since 1990. The most unpopular bill that was passed? Guess what it is? It's the Big, Beautiful bill. Even worse than Obamacare.”

“Even worse than Obamacare?” asked Burnett, referring to the health bill's initial unpopularity before later becoming popular among Americans.

“At minus eight points was Obamacare," Enten said. "Look at where the Big Beautiful bill is: 17 points underwater there. Simply put, there isn't anything close to how unpopular the Big Beautiful bill is."

“I can't believe that's really its name,” said Burnett. “Sometimes you got to be careful what you wish for.”

“You got that right,” agreed Enten.

Watch the video below, or by clicking here.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Blank check': Critics call Trump’s budget 'a slush fund' to 'spend however he wants'

The Dispatch reports President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans splashed “border security” with $165 billion in new spending with their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but experts are worried about the “absence of accountability measures for how the money will be spent.”

“It’s a blank check,” said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. “There’s no accountability. There’s no oversight. We already know that the [DHS] rearranges money and moves around accounts whenever it feels like it. … This is a slush fund for the president to spend however he wants.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) currently has an $8 billion annual budget, while Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has a current annual budget of around $20 billion. All that changes with OBBBA, however, but the actual accounting appears “rife with redundancies, overlaps, and vague wording.

For example, the Dispatch reports the bill appropriated $10 billion to DHS to reimburse “costs incurred in undertaking activities in support of the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to safeguard the borders of the United States.” But the provision doesn’t specify any real mission, time frame for the reimbursement, or which DHS subdivision is getting reimbursed.

When reporters asked DHS officials for clarification the agency responded with one-page press release from a signing ceremony. The document made no mention of the $10 billion.

Meanwhile, the Dispatch reports big ticket items in the immigration enforcement section of Trump’s bill provide cover for smaller endeavors that ferret away money for “similarly obscure purposes.”

The House’s version of the bill dedicated $40 million to immigrant background checks that included examinations for “gang-related tattoos or gang-related markings.” At the time, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) could not tell Dispatch reporters whether the funds were going toward examiners’ compensation, identification technology, or new facilities to house migrant youth while examinations were underway. By the time the bill made it out of the Senate, the Dispatch reports there is no telling how much of the $300 million allocation to the Office of Refugee Resettlement handles tattoo inspection or any ancillary costs that come of it.

The Dispatch also can’t say exactly how the bill distributes $10 billion to states for their part in border enforcement, but Gov. Greg Abbott claims Texas’ Operation Lone Star cost the state $11 billion.

Reporters also note the OBBBA’s homeland security section features plenty of spending unrelated to border security, including security for the 2028 Olympic Games and $300 million in reimbursements to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for “extraordinary law enforcement personnel costs” —for protecting the president’s residences.

Bier says one of the bill’s most notorious sleight-of-hand acts is creating permanent infrastructure and jobs that will add trillions in debt while being difficult for a future Congress to remove.

“I think that’s one of the main budgetary gimmicks here that hides the true cost of what they’re doing,” said Bier.

Read the full Dispatch report at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Gotta take the wins': Josh Hawley defends vote for bill he admitted would harm his state

The passage of President Donald Trump's massive budget legislation was only possible with the support of Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who publicly railed against the bill's provisions gutting Medicaid funding before it became law last week.

Now, NBC News is reporting that Hawley is standing by his vote for the bill, while simultaneously maintaining that more needs to be done in order to protect his constituents who rely on Medicaid for their health insurance. He's insisting that healthcare provider tax changes (which limit the amount of money that states can reimburse for Medicaid) won't go into effect until 2030 – when he's up for reelection.

“I think that if Republicans don’t come out strong and say we’re going to protect rural hospitals, then, yeah, I think voters aren’t going to like that,” Hawley told NBC News on Wednesday. “The truth of the matter is, we shouldn’t be cutting rural hospitals. I’m completely opposed to cutting rural hospitals period. I haven’t changed my view on that one iota.”

The Missouri Republican notably pivoted from the unpopular Medicaid cuts to his successful gambit to get funding for rural hospitals and for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) included in the megabill, which he argued would be a boon for Missouri residents who have health-related issues from prolonged exposure to radioactive waste. RECA expired in 2024, and Hawley acknowledged the work done by Democratic lawmakers from Missouri to get RECA re-authorized.

"Gotta take the wins that you can," Hawley said.

Hawley's vote in favor of the new budget law was somewhat surprising, given that he wrote a New York Times op-ed in May slamming its Medicaid cuts, calling them "morally wrong and politically suicidal." He accused the "Wall Street wing" of the GOP for sticking to its "old-time religion" of steep cuts to social welfare programs in exchange for more "corporate giveaways."

The sweeping tax, spending and immigration enforcement bill only passed the Senate with the help of a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President JD Vance, and would have been defeated if Hawley voted no. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) voted against the bill, along with all 47 Senate Democrats.

Click here to read NBC's full report.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Mass betrayal': Faith leader calls out 'sin' of Republicans voting for bill that 'kills'

A prominent faith leader is condemning President Donald Trump's recently passed budget bill as a “mass betrayal,” accusing the government of turning its back on the nation’s most vulnerable and violating moral principles.

In an op‑ed published Monday in The Hill, Reverend Dwayne Royster – senior pastor of Faith United Church of Christ – strongly criticized the Trump administration’s signature budget legislation. With unflinching language, he described the $1 trillion-plus package not merely as fiscal policy, but as a direct assault on the needy.

“This is not simply politics as usual.… It is a mass betrayal — a sacrifice of the vulnerable on the altar of greed," Royster said.

Royster lambasted lawmakers, especially those of immigrant descent, for supporting the bill.

“In these halls of power, where few trace their roots to the lands beneath their feet, descendants of immigrants now plot the deportation, detention and disappearance of the most recent generation of arrivals.”

He continued: "The hypocrisy is as thick as the marble lining the floors of the Capitol. To wield the gavel against those who walked paths once trod by your own ancestors is to spit on the legends told around family tables — the stories of hardship, crossing and hope. It is also, bluntly, a sin."

The faith leader argued that this betrayal strikes at the heart of American identity and heritage.

“This budget does not just ‘cut costs.’ It kills," he added. "Speaking plainly, there will be children who go hungry, men and women who die for want of Medicaid.”

He warned of seniors enduring needless suffering and immigrants vanishing into private detention systems — some even perishing there. “There will be immigrants… who vanish into the gears of a detention machine — some forever, as deaths rise in for‑profit immigrant prisons," he wrote.

Royster urged readers not to view this as routine politics but as a deeply human crisis.

He concluded with a note of defiance and agency. “But the ledgers of history are not yet closed. Our nation’s destiny is not in the hands of politicians alone. The time for mourning must become a time for action.”

Last month, a Religion News Service report noted that several faith leaders and legislators have rallied against Trump's "Big, Beautiful bill,” arguing it disproportionately favors the wealthy while harming the poor.

Despite these concerns, the bill was signed into law during a ceremony at the White House last Friday.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Lies and propaganda': Social Security beneficiaries slam agency’s pro-Trump email

Social Security beneficiaries and other people in the program’s database do not appear to appreciate a recent email from the department praising the passage of President Donald Trump’s budget.

“I am not a Social Security recipient but even if I was: Why am I getting an email from SSA celebrating this legislation? How is this an appropriate use of that ostensibly massive database?” asked Amanda Litman, president of political recruitment group ‘Run for Something’.

“Why is the Social Security Admin trying to gaslight seniors?” demanded another critic on X. “They're supposed to be nonpartisan. The mega bill will give a larger tax deduction for 4 years to seniors, but make no mistake about it, you will still pay fed tax on your social sec benefits.”

The email, containing a message from Trump-appointed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, claims Trump’s budget “ensures that nearly 90 percent of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits.”

This, say critics, is not truth. It is also a dangerous omission.

“We rated that statement Mostly False,” said Politifact analyst Louis Jacobson. “The bill will provide a tax break for Americans ages 65 and over, but it won’t eliminate the Social Security tax entirely. Some 24 million Social Security beneficiaries will still be taxed on some of their checks from the program, according to Congress’ bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation’s staff director. Many of those are younger than 65 and thus ineligible for the new tax deduction.”

Jacobson added that the resulting reduction in payments to the Social Security trust fund will mean benefit cuts to beneficiaries will likely come sooner as the fund is threatened with insolvency.

“And by experts’ analyses, anyone born after 1967 could see the effect,” Jacobson said.

Former Social Security Deputy Commissioner Jeff Nesbit slammed the email.

“The agency has never issued such a blatant political statement,” Nesbit posted on X. “The fact that Trump and his minion running SSA has done this is unconscionable.”

“Lies and propaganda,” said Medicaid beneficiary Lauren Ashley Davis.

“They are thrilled about the bill passing,” commented another. “I don’t understand why, as millions of people will lose their Medicaid. That’s worth more than taxes.”

Read the Newsweek report at this link

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Big mask off moment': GOP rep caught gloating after '17 million people lost health care'

In a now-deleted social media post, Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) seemed to boast that millions would lose health coverage due to the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which passed the House on Thursday after an overnight session.

Van Orden wrote "YES!" on the social platform X Thursday, while quoting an X user's post that said "17 million people lost health care" and "18 million kids lost school meals" after the passage Trump's sweeping budget bill. The Wisconsin Republican's post came moments after he and his fellow GOP lawmakers voted on the legislation.

Social media users expressed shock at Van Orden’s post, despite it being shortly deleted after posting.

Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner wrote: "Republican Congressman celebrating people losing healthcare and children losing school meals."

Democratic strategist Katie Smith wrote: ".@derrickvanorden is gloating about cutting health care and taking food away from children. Cruel, awful, unfit to represent."

Rebecca Cook, Democratic candidate for Congress from Wisconsin, wrote: "@derrickvanorden is celebrating kids going hungry and people losing health coverage. Big mask off moment."

Tennessee Holler's X account said: "A real tweet from Wisconsin Republican Rep. @derrickvanorden Today’s GOP in a nutshell."

"Wisconsin Republican Rep Derrick Van Orden is very happy that he's taking health insurance and food assistance away from millions of Americans. How do people like this get elected?" wrote a user.

"Let’s all refuse to avert our eyes. They are showing us who they are. It’s embarrassing and shameful and we will pay the price for generations," said another user.

On Wednesday, Van Orden bristled at the notion that Trump was the “deciding factor” in the vote, telling reporters, “The president of the United States didn’t give us an assignment. We’re not a bunch of little bitches around here, okay?”

Trump's massive budget bill passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives Thursday afternoon after a dramatic overnight session. The bill will now be sent to the president for his signature.

The development is being described as a major legislative win for Trump that would enable him to implement his domestic agenda.

AlterNet reached out to Van Orden's office for comment.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

These 8 Republicans who publicly trashed Trump's bill 'cowed under the pressure': report

Eight Republican lawmakers buckled under mounting pressure and ultimately supported President Donald Trump's sweeping reconciliation package — despite previously voicing sharp criticism of its content, according to a report.

Among those who initially opposed the bill — Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), as well as Reps. Keith Self (R-Texas), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), David Valadao (R-Calif.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) — ultimately voted in favor of its passage.

After months of politicking, drafting policy and burning the midnight oil, the reconciliation measure was officially approved Thursday afternoon.

A report from NOTUS published Thursday highlight that that same day, several GOP critics who had vocally condemned the plan voted in favor.

Harris, chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who had blasted the $3.3 trillion bill as “not ready for prime time,” still voted yes. Ogles had introduced an amendment to strip out all Senate changes and labeled the measure “Frankenstein." He ultimately supported it.

Valadao, who represents a Central Valley district heavily reliant on Medicaid, vehemently opposed the deeper Medicaid cuts. He had said “no” to reductions beyond the House-approved $793 billion budget — yet still backed the final bill.

Murkowski, who fought to protect Alaska from extreme Medicaid and food aid cuts and declared the bill “not good enough for the rest of our nation." She also voted affirmatively.

Hawley, who authored a New York Times op‑ed decrying the centrality of Medicaid cuts in the plan as “morally wrong and politically suicidal,” also sided with the reconciliation package.

And in the House, Self called the legislation “broken." Roy said it was “a travesty” and Norman thought it was "mortgaging our future." All expressed dire warnings — only to cast votes to advance it.

The NOTUS article notes: "If there was any doubt, Trump has cemented himself as the unquestioned boss of the Republican Party, unfazed about bullying even the most stubborn Republican lawmakers, threatening them with a primary challenge."

It added: "Moderate and conservative Republicans alike cowed under the pressure."

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web