View this email in your browser ([link removed])
Forward this email to a friend ([link removed])
[link removed]
[link removed]

Photo by Nathan Howard/Reuters

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

CRUNCH TIME
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

We’ve spent a few weeks going in-depth about the programs President Donald Trump wants to eliminate and about the one “big, beautiful bill” he wants to pass through Congress.

As summer approaches, it is crunch time for Republicans in Congress. Here is where two major efforts stand.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”

Where it stands: Republicans now have an uphill climb to make their self-imposed deadline of passing the entire “big” bill (which we call “OBBBA”) through Congress by July 4.

Challenges mounting. There are quite a few. First, the fiscally conservative House Freedom Caucus is asking for deeper cuts in the bill, per a memo obtained by Punchbowl. ([link removed]) So is Sen. Ron Johnson ([link removed]) , R-Wisc. Elon Musk’s social media tirade ([link removed]) against the bill has not helped. Meanwhile, other Senate Republicans have problems with the Medicaid cuts that conservatives like, and with the state and local tax deductions that several House moderates say are must-haves.

What happens next? Senate Republicans will be briefed Wednesday on the framework of the bill in that chamber. It will be different from the House version, but we do not yet know to what degree. This will give us a sense of whether there is any chance for this bill to get through the Senate in the next two weeks. That’s the high-pressure timeline for when the House needs to get the changed bill in time to pass it before the July Fourth recess.

What I think. This is already a herculean, ambitious bill. But smashing it through the Senate and then the House when deep issues remain unresolved seems like long odds. Republicans have counted on the pressure from the upcoming debt ceiling deadline, which is part of the bill, to help move this.

But the Congressional Budget Office just pushed back its debt ceiling deadline estimate ([link removed]) , or its so-called “X-date.”

This opens up the possibility that this bill gets kicked into the fall and the debt ceiling debate is separated. Trump does not want that.

Rescissions

Where it stands: The $9.4 billion rescissions package ([link removed]) , which would immediately cut some funding for foreign aid and public media, is poised to pass in the House, though it is encountering new issues worth watching. Its fate in the Senate is not yet clear.

Support and challenges. The vast majority of the House Republican Conference supports this bill, which would codify some of Trump's foreign aid cuts and his desire to eliminate the federal money that supports the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which passes along funds to NPR and PBS stations and programming, including the News Hour.

But speaking with members today, there is a significant group that is not yet on board. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told me he has concerns about the PBS cuts specifically. So does Rep. Mark Amodei ([link removed]) , R-Nev., and Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif.

What happens next? At the moment, Republicans can only lose three votes and still win a majority. So those three votes, with one more, would jeopardize the bill. And in the meantime, speaking to the Republican senators, there are issues in that chamber as well. But key senators are unlikely to put their cards on the table before the House votes up or down.

On top of that, many Republicans think the savings gained from these rescissions — some $9 billion in the face of a $36 trillion debt — are tiny and symbolic at best.

What I think: The rescissions package would fail if this were a secret ballot vote in the House. But Republicans are under extreme pressure to codify some of the cuts from the Department of Government Efficiency and to take action in Congress.
More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: Trump’s deployment in California sparks debate ([link removed]) over state and federal authority.
* One Big Question: What is Trump’s strategy in escalating his response? NPR’s Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter discuss. ([link removed])
* A Closer Look: How Trump filled key positions with people who spread extremist views. ([link removed])
* Perspectives: Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister of New Zealand, on keeping empathy in politics ([link removed]) and new memoir, “A Different Kind of Power.”

FACING DOWN A DEADLINE TO LEAVE THE MILITARY, TRANS TROOPS MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS
[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.
By Joshua Barajas
Senior Editor, Digital

Friday was the deadline for transgender troops to opt for “voluntary separation” from the military, as outlined under President Donald Trump’s orders to ban them from service.

The timeline was laid out by the Pentagon after the Supreme Court said Trump’s second attempt at a ban could move forward. It is not clear what lies ahead for service members who choose to stay and fight the ban.

“Voluntary” isn’t how Chief Petty Officer Ryan Goodell would describe the ultimatum.

“I re-enlisted back in December for a re-enlistment bonus, and [it’s] clearly stated in the memo I may have to pay that back,” if he didn’t choose to leave by the deadline, Goodell told PBS News’ Nick Schifrin. ([link removed]) “If I chose the involuntary route, I would be liable to pay that back. And so that felt pressure enough to help steer me in that — quote, unquote — ‘voluntary direction.’”

Nicolas Talbott, the lead plaintiff in one of the lawsuits against the ban, is not taking the voluntary separation route.

“We transgender service members are living proof that we belong in the uniforms that we have worked so hard for. We have earned our spots. We have earned our ranks,” the second lieutenant in the US Army Reserve said. “We have earned our awards. And our service should speak for itself.”

Goodell and Talbot reflected on their service and what comes next in an extended interview with PBS News. ([link removed])

HEGSETH SAYS TROOPS COULD BE IN LOS ANGELES FOR 60 DAYS
[link removed]
Watch the clip in the player above.
By Dan Cooney
Social Media Producer/Coordinator

Troops deployed to Los Angeles by President Donald Trump in response to anti-ICE protests could be there for 60 days ([link removed]) and will cost an estimated $134 million, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

“We stated very publicly that it's 60 days because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we're not going anywhere,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. “We're here to maintain the peace on behalf of law enforcement officers in Los Angeles, which Gavin Newsom won't do.”

Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, the Pentagon’s acting comptroller and CFO, told lawmakers that this would cost an estimated $134 million, which will come out of operations and maintenance funds.

California has sued the Trump administration ([link removed]) for calling up state National Guard troops, saying the president has overstepped his authority. Some legal experts argue the president’s justification for calling up the National Guard is untested legal theory. On Monday, Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said police response to the protests was complicated by federal law enforcement.

Aguilar later asked Hegseth how the president justified deploying the National Guard. The congressman, whose district includes San Bernardino and a region east of Los Angeles, noted that federal law allows the president to call up the National Guard in three instances: when the U.S. is invaded or in danger of being invaded, when there’s a rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the president is unable to execute the law with regular forces.

“I don't know, you just read it yourself and people can listen themselves, but it sounds like all three to me,” Hegseth said. “If you've got millions of illegals and you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers and law enforcement officers, that’s a problem.”

“You and I both know that President Trump has all the authorities necessary and, thankfully, he’s willing to do it,” Hegseth added.
More on the deployment to Los Angeles from our coverage:
* Watch: How Southern California officials are reacting to immigration demonstrations and the federal response. ([link removed])
* Read: California’s request for a federal judge to stop Trump from using troops to support immigration raids. ([link removed])
* Pressed for Details: “Where is the plan?” ([link removed]) Rep. DeLauro, D-Conn., asks Hegseth in heated exchange.
* White House Response: Without providing evidence, Trump accuses some Los Angeles protesters of being “paid insurrectionists.” ([link removed])

THIS WEEK’S TRIVIA QUESTION
By Joshua Barajas
Senior Editor, Digital

President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to protests of federal immigration raids was done without the consent ([link removed]) of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

This was the first time in 60 years that a U.S. president has activated a state's National Guard troops without the request of state officials.

Our question: Who was the last American president to deploy National Guard troops without the cooperation of state officials?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: On Gilbert Baker’s original design for the Pride flag, which color symbolizes the spirit of LGBTQ+ people?

The answer: Violet. ([link removed]) The original Pride flag had eight colors, with hot pink symbolizing sex and turquoise for magic and art, according to the Human Rights Campaign. These two colors were later removed as the gay pride symbol evolved over the years.

Congratulations to our winners: Ron Aaron Eisenberg and Michael Sgarlat!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
PBS News depends on the support of individuals who believe in the importance of independent, balanced and in-depth reporting on the most important domestic and international issues of the day. Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution ([link removed]) to ensure our vital reporting continues to thrive. Thank you.

Support PBS News Hour journalism ([link removed])
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS News' e ([link removed]) mails. ([link removed])
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2025 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3939 Campbell Ave.
Arlington, VA 22206

** Update my email preferences ([link removed])

** Unsubscribe from all PBS News emails ([link removed])