Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional — The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the statute contains no mention of tariffs or duties and that the Constitution assigns taxing power to Congress. The decision invoked the major questions doctrine, holding that powers of vast economic significance require clear statutory language. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined Roberts's lead opinion; Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the core holding, with Kagan writing separately on statutory interpretation grounds.
• Media Invitation Announced for United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. Pre-Trial Hearing — The Department of War published an advisory on 2026-02-20 through its advisories channel. The department's own account of it reads: "The War Department invites media to cover pretrial proceedings in the case of United States v. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, scheduled for May 4 - 29, 2026."
• Supreme Court strikes down Trump tariffs; CBP ordered to process $166bn in refunds — The Supreme Court invalidated Trump's "liberation day" tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling he lacked legal authority. A federal judge ordered US Customs and Border Protection to process refunds to approximately 330,000 importers totaling an estimated $166 billion without requiring lawsuits. CBP filed notice it would establish a refund system within 45 days using existing liquidation procedures. The ruling resolved a core constitutional question about executive power but left implementation details to lower courts and agency discretion.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's "liberation day" tariffs as illegal — On 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed in April 2025 were illegal. The decision opened the door to an estimated $175 billion in refund claims from businesses across the country. Major companies including FedEx, L'Oreal, and Dyson have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds. The ruling has triggered a surge in demand for trade lawyers and created opportunities for hedge funds and AI firms to profit from the refund process.
• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs — The US Supreme Court ruled on 20 February 2026 that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing far-reaching global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found the tariffs unlawful but did not address whether the Trump administration must repay an estimated $133 billion in collected tariffs, leaving the refund question to lower courts. Trump immediately signaled intent to reintroduce tariffs via alternative legal authority.
• Former South Korean President Sentenced to Life in Prison — The Seoul Central District Court sentenced former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison for leading an insurrection against the government. Yoon had declared martial law in December 2024, attempting to block the National Assembly and arrest opposition politicians. His actions were deemed unconstitutional, leading to his impeachment and removal from office. The court considered his age and lack of lethal force in its sentencing.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump's tariffs unconstitutional — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court declared President Trump's tariffs unconstitutional. Following this ruling, Trump claimed the right to impose tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes tariffs to address "large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." Trump was the first president to invoke this provision, and his use of it has already been challenged in court.
• U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Trump's IEEPA tariffs as unconstitutional in 6–3 decision — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that President Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed under emergency declarations citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), violated the Constitution. Trump had declared national emergencies regarding drug influx and trade deficits to justify sweeping tariff increases that upended post-World War II free trade principles. The Court found that Congress alone holds constitutional authority to tax Americans, and that Trump's tariff authority under IEEPA did not extend to the broad economic restructuring he imposed. The ruling invalidated tariffs that had cost American households an estimated $1,000–$1,700 in 2025 and slowed economic growth to 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under IEEPA — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Supreme Court invalidates tariff authority under International Emergency Economic Powers Act — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. The majority (Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor) rejected the government's tariff authority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation.
• Supreme Court ruled against Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted it to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA clearly authorized tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff authority — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously read IEEPA to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented. The majority included Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff power — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff authority — The Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority supported the opposite reading.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariff power — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power under the statute. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority and that IEEPA clearly authorized the power. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• Supreme Court rules IEEPA does not authorize tariffs — On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, with Kavanaugh arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported presidential tariff authority.
• Supreme Court ruled Trump cannot use emergency powers to impose tariffs — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had claimed such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• Solicitor General granted amicus participation and divided argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that no President had previously interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA clearly authorizes tariff imposition as a means of regulating importation and commerce.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (24-1287) — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no President had previously claimed such power. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing a long tradition of presidential tariff authority. The ruling invalidated tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority.
• — On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs or duties. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties" and that "until now, no President has read IEEPA to confer such power." Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined Roberts; Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties and that no prior president had interpreted the statute to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented, arguing that IEEPA's language and historical practice supported tariff authority.
• — The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and no President had previously read it to confer such power. Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor joined the majority; Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.
• — In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump cannot use emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the statute grants sufficient authority for tariff imposition. The ruling represents the Court's most significant rebuke of the Trump administration since his return to office.
• — The Supreme Court granted the Solicitor General's motion to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and to conduct divided argument in the pending case Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al. (Docket 24-1238). This procedural grant permits the federal government to present oral argument alongside the parties and allows argument time to be divided among multiple speakers.
• — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Docket number(s): 24-1287.

Supporting reports

• Treasury Secretary Bessent announced U.S. support for Argentina's economy — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced on social media on September 22, 2025, fifteen minutes before Argentina's foreign-exchange markets opened, that the U.S. will consider "all options" for stabilizing Argentina's economy. Bessent stated that "Argentina is a systemically important U.S. ally." Argentina's right-wing president Javier Milei, a Trump ally, faces declining voter support ahead of elections next month due to austerity measures, inflation, and currency weakness.
• Argentina stock market surged following US Treasury announcement — Following the Trump administration's announcement of support for Argentina, Argentina's stock market surged 8% after having collapsed 10% in the previous 24 hours. The Kobeissi Letter reported that the timing of the US Treasury's "lifeline" announcement coincided with the market recovery, occurring one month before Argentina's midterm elections.
• Treasury Secretary announced support for Argentina bailout — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the US Treasury stands ready to support Argentina with stabilization measures, stating that "all options are on the table" including swap lines, direct currency purchases, and purchases of US dollar-denominated government debt from the Exchange Stabilization Fund. Bessent praised President Javier Milei's fiscal discipline and pro-growth reforms.
• Treasury Department considered using Exchange Stabilization Fund to bail out Argentina. — The Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration was considering using the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund to provide financial assistance to Argentina. The fund, created in the 1930s, can be used to supply loans to foreign countries facing dire financial difficulties, with the Treasury secretary having full control over its use. Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations called such unilateral action "incredibly unusual," noting the U.S. typically coordinates such assistance with other countries and the IMF.
• Treasury Secretary Bessent offered financial support to Argentina without conditions. — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent offered financial support to Argentina without conditions such as requiring the country to address its over-valued peso problem. Mark Sobel, a former U.S. Treasury and IMF official, criticized this approach as potentially "a way of just financing capital flight for little purpose," noting that investors have 100+ years of experience with Argentine over-borrowing, hyperinflation, and defaults.
• CPAC promoted Bessent's Argentina rescue package on social media — After Treasury Secretary Bessent announced the $20 billion rescue package for Argentina on September 24, CPAC promoted the deal on its social media accounts. This occurred despite CPAC's promotion of an "America First" agenda and despite the fact that CPAC's affiliated lobbying firm, Tactic Global, was simultaneously representing Argentina as a foreign agent and had organized CPAC Argentina featuring President Milei.
• Treasury announces $20 billion currency swap with Argentina; potential expansion to $40 billion — On September 24, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a $20 billion currency swap with Argentina, exchanging U.S. taxpayer dollars for Argentine pesos to support President Javier Milei's peso stabilization efforts. The bailout may expand to $40 billion as Bessent organizes an additional $20 billion facility financed by banks and private equity, with those banks demanding U.S. government guarantees to backstop potential losses. President Trump acknowledged the bailout provides little benefit to Americans but benefits hedge fund billionaire Robert Citrone, a personal friend and former colleague of Bessent with heavy Argentine asset investments.
• Treasury Secretary Bessent announced $20 billion bailout package for Argentina, reportedly at hedge fund billionaire's request — On September 24, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a $20 billion U.S. Treasury package to rescue Argentina's economy. Argentine media outlets report that hedge fund billionaire Rob Citrone, a personal friend and former colleague of Bessent, requested the bailout after his fund Discovery Capital suffered losses from Argentine investments. Citrone had previously urged Bessent to help secure a separate $20 billion IMF package in spring 2025. Argentine media also reports Citrone purchased additional Argentine bonds two weeks before the bailout announcement, raising suspicions he had access to confidential information.
• Treasury Secretary Bessent announces $20 billion rescue package for Argentina — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a $20 billion taxpayer-funded economic rescue package for Argentina, involving currency stabilization through dollar-peso exchanges. The package was designed to shore up Argentina's foreign currency reserves and stabilize the peso amid economic crisis under President Javier Milei. Bessent's announcement followed months of advocacy by hedge fund manager Rob Citrone, a personal and professional associate of Bessent, who holds substantial Argentine investments and stands to benefit significantly from the currency stabilization.
• U.S. prepares financial aid for Argentina — The U.S. government is preparing a $20 billion financial aid package for Argentina's right-wing leader Javier Milei, despite recent actions that undermine U.S. agricultural interests. This aid is being directed without following the usual congressional appropriations process.
• U.S. preparing $20 billion rescue package for Argentina — The Trump administration is preparing a $20 billion rescue package to bail out Argentina's right-wing leader Javier Milei, a Trump ally, before October elections. This financial support is being offered despite Argentina recently suspending its grain export tax, which undercut U.S. soybean farmers who lost their Chinese market due to Trump's tariff war. Within hours of Argentina's action, China purchased Argentine soybeans.

Supporting reports

• Republicans attempt to pass significant budget bill — Republicans in Congress attempted to advance a budget measure dubbed “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” which aimed to extend Trump’s tax cuts at a projected cost of $4.6 trillion over ten years while raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill faced opposition and ultimately failed to advance out of the House Budget Committee.
• House Budget Committee passes bill in late-night session — The House Budget Committee passed a budget bill after a late-night session, with some members who previously voted 'No' changing their votes to 'Present.' The bill is set to face further scrutiny in the Rules Committee.
• Republicans criticized for scheduling votes at odd hours — Several Democratic representatives criticized Republicans for scheduling votes on significant legislation during late-night hours, suggesting a lack of transparency and public engagement in the legislative process.
• House Committee Advances Trump’s Tax Cut Bill — On May 18, 2025, a key House committee passed a tax cut and border security package, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, after reaching an agreement with far-right Republicans who had previously stalled its progress. The bill, which aims to extend tax breaks from Trump's first term and increase spending on border security, faces challenges in the full House due to potential opposition from moderates concerned about cuts to climate incentives and healthcare programs. The bill's passage is crucial for Republicans, who need to unite their party to pass it before the Memorial Day deadline.
• House Budget Committee Passes Controversial Bill — The House Budget Committee passed a bill referred to as the “Big, Beautiful Bill” on a party-line vote, with 17 Republicans in favor and 16 Democrats against. The bill includes cuts to Medicaid and extends tax cuts for the wealthy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will significantly increase the federal deficit. House Speaker Mike Johnson indicated minor modifications would be made, while critics argue the bill is being rushed through Congress without adequate scrutiny.
• House Republicans schedule procedural vote on Trump's bill — House Republicans have scheduled a procedural vote for 1am on Wednesday to advance President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which aims to enact his taxation and immigration priorities. The bill includes making permanent or extending tax cuts, ending taxation of tips and overtime, funding a border wall, and mass deportations. It proposes slashing federal safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP to offset costs, which has caused division among Republicans. The bill's passage is crucial for Trump, but it faces opposition from some lawmakers concerned about its impact on Medicaid and the SALT deduction.
• House Rules Committee to Consider Omnibus Bill — The House Rules Committee is scheduled to meet on May 21, 2025, to discuss a 1,116-page omnibus bill proposed by Republicans that aims to implement significant parts of former President Trump's agenda, including cuts to Medicaid and increased logging on public lands. The bill is being advanced through a budget reconciliation process, which allows it to pass with only Republican votes in the Senate. However, there is notable division among Republicans regarding the proposed Medicaid cuts, which are unpopular among constituents.
• House passes Budget Reconciliation Bill — The House of Representatives passed the Budget Reconciliation Bill by a narrow margin of 215-214, with two Republicans voting against it and one voting present. The bill's passage is significant as it will now move to the Senate, where Republican opposition is anticipated.
• Congressional Republicans pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — Congressional Republicans narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a 215-214 vote. The bill aims to permanently extend tax cuts from Trump's first term and introduce new deductions for working-class families, but these benefits will expire in 2028. The bill also includes cuts to social safety net programs, potentially affecting millions of poor and disabled Americans. The legislation is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit by 2034. It now moves to the US Senate for further consideration under the budget reconciliation procedure, which limits Democratic influence.
• House Passes Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act — The House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans, passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" act, which enacts President Donald Trump's taxation and spending priorities. The bill includes making permanent the tax cuts from Trump's first term, increasing the standard deduction, and introducing new tax write-offs. It also allocates significant funds for mass deportations and border wall construction, imposes new fees on immigrants seeking asylum, and restricts federal courts from enforcing certain contempt citations. Additionally, it cuts funding for Medicaid and SNAP, phases out green energy incentives, and raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The bill now awaits consideration in the Senate.
• House Passes Trump's Tax Bill — On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax bill championed by Donald Trump, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This legislation aims to make permanent the tax cuts established in 2017, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans and corporations. The bill also includes cuts to government assistance programs like Medicaid and SNAP, and ends clean energy tax credits. The bill is expected to cost the federal government $4.6 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade, while saving $1 trillion through reduced spending on assistance programs.
• House passes Trump's tax-and-spend bill — On May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a tax-and-spend bill, which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and makes significant spending reductions, particularly in Medicaid and food assistance programs. The bill passed without any Democratic support and has been criticized for potentially increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis indicates that the bill would leave 10.9 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. The bill now moves to the Senate, where modifications are expected.
• House passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill — The House of Representatives passed a major tax-cut bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aligns with Donald Trump's tax and spending priorities. The bill, passed by a narrow margin of 215-214, includes provisions for tax cuts for individuals and corporations, funding for a border wall, and new work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP. It is expected to add $2.3 trillion to the deficit. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans aim to pass it by July 4th.
• House Committee Advances Bill with Steeper Medicaid Cuts — After extensive debate, the House Rules Committee agreed to advance The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes steeper cuts to Medicaid to gain support from far-right Republicans. These cuts are expected to leave at least 9 million people without healthcare coverage, reflecting a significant shift in healthcare policy.
• House of Representatives passes Republicans' megabill — The House of Representatives passed a significant bill by a vote of 215 to 214, with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against it. The bill includes substantial cuts to healthcare and nutrition assistance, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating that it will result in over 2.7 million households losing benefits. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
• House Rules Committee Begins Hearing on The One Big, Beautiful Bill — The House Rules Committee commenced a hearing on a budget bill dubbed The One Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes significant restrictions on federal courts' authority to hold government officials in contempt for violating court orders. This bill also proposes a $3.8 trillion extension of tax cuts from 2017, primarily benefiting the wealthy and corporations, while cutting federal healthcare and food assistance programs, potentially leaving millions without coverage. The committee moved the bill forward after 22 hours of debate, aiming for a swift vote in the House.
• House Republicans Pass Bill Cutting Medicaid and Medicare — In a late-night session, House Republicans passed a bill that could remove 8 million people from Medicaid, cut Medicare spending, and add $4 trillion to the national debt. The bill also includes tax cuts for the wealthy and funds for the border wall.
• Congressional Budget Office Reports on Impact of Proposed Bill — The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the proposed budget bill will add $2.3 trillion to the federal deficit over the next ten years and will trigger cuts to Medicare due to the Pay-As-You-Go law. These cuts, limited by law to 4%, are expected to total approximately $490 billion from 2027 through 2034. The CBO's findings highlight the bill's potential negative impact on low-income Americans and the healthcare system.
• Proposed Cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — The proposed budget bill includes cuts of about 30% to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which would be the largest cut in the program's history. This reduction is projected to cut approximately $300 billion from the program through 2034, affecting over 40 million people, including children and seniors.
• House passes Trump’s budget bill with significant cuts — The House of Representatives passed a budget bill that extends tax cuts for individuals and corporations while implementing funding cuts and new work requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These changes are expected to bar millions from receiving essential benefits, raising concerns among affected workers and advocates. The bill also includes funding for a border wall and facilities for mass deportations.