Senate Pressing Big, Beautiful Bill in Marathon Voting Session

The Hill: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is looking to nail down the support of several Republican senators, including at least two moderates and three conservatives, who haven’t yet said they will vote for final passage…. Republicans can lose a maximum of three votes, and Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are already expected to vote “no” over their opposition to proposed Medicaid cuts and the inclusion of a $5 trillion debt ceiling hike, respectively. The House will return midweek to vote on the bill (The Hill). World: Unlike the House of Representatives, senators can introduce any amendment they want to legislation, forcing consideration of what can sometimes be hundreds of proposed changes. The marathon of amendment considerations in the Senate, commonly referred to as a vote-a-rama, provides Democrats with their best weapon to stall a vote. It’s not a filibuster, the unlimited debate that can only be stopped by a 60-vote majority. But the vote-a-rama, which began at 9 a.m. on Monday, is expected to push consideration of the bill itself either late into the evening or early Tuesday morning. By introducing amendment after amendment, Democrats can try to tempt Republicans toward policy positions that would fail in the House. Or they can just wear down senators. They can also sign on to Republican-led amendments that might go against what GOP leadership has in mind. In one such case, Democrats may try to support a proposal by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, aimed to double the bill’s funding for rural hospitals—a change likely to rub fiscal hawks the wrong way. The vote-a-rama itself is not likely to pose a meaningful challenge to the Big Beautiful Bill, but it opens the door to political considerations that might complicate the process in the next steps (World).

AG Bondi Sues Los Angeles

Over the city’s policies interfering with federal law enforcement. From the Department of Justice: Not only are Los Angeles’s “sanctuary city” policies illegal under federal law, but, as alleged in the complaint, Los Angeles’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities contributed to the recent lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism that was so severe that it required the federal government to deploy the California National Guard and the United States Marines to quell the chaos…. “Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law,” said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California. “The United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not. By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City’s unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end” (Justice). Los Angeles Times: This month, immigration agents have descended on Southern California, arresting more than 1,600 immigrants and prompting furious protests in downtown Los Angeles, Paramount and other communities. According to the lawsuit, L.A.’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities since June 6 has resulted in “lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism” (Los Angeles Times).

Trump Doubles Down on the Fed: “You should lower the rate by a lot!”

Axios: President Trump sent a letter to Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell urging the central bank to lower interest rates “by a lot,” the White House said on Monday. The administration has stepped up public pressure on the Fed, with top officials floating the possibility of announcing Powell’s replacement months before his term expires. “Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell, and his entire Board, should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen to the United States,” Trump posted on Truth Social. Trump’s post included what appeared to be the letter, which White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump sent to the Fed on Monday. “You have cost the U.S.A. a fortune — and continue to do so,” the letter, which was written on a document that lists foreign nations’ interest rate levels, says. “You should lower the rate by a lot!” Trump again said that the Fed should be lowering rates to help save the government money on interest payments, a suggestion that is at odds with the Fed’s mandates (Axios). There’s speculation that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent could become the next Fed Chair: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Monday he’d be open to replacing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as President Trump looks to replace the central bank chief as soon as possible. Asked if it’s a job he would want to do, Bessent said he would comply with Trump’s wishes. “I will do what the president wants,” he said in a TV interview with Bloomberg News, adding that he was happy with his current position as Treasury secretary…. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends in May, though his term as a member of the board of governors doesn’t end until 2028 (The Hill).

Trump Administration’s Formal Findings on Harvard: “violent violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act”

From the Department of Education: Today, the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism is notifying you that the Office for Civil Rights at the United States Department of Health and Human Services has concluded its Title VI investigation regarding anti-Semitism at Harvard University.  After a thorough investigation, HHS OCR finds that Harvard University is in violent violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (DOE). Ed Morrissey: This finding not only complicates any efforts to restore funding that has already been cut off, it disqualifies Harvard from any further access to federal funds. They have three options, none of which are going to be pleasant for Garber under the circumstances. They could go the Hillsdale College route and eschew any federal funding to remain completely independent, as the DoJ letter suggests, but Hillsdale built their financial model with that policy in mind. Harvard’s business model entirely depends on federal subsidies and grants. They would have to pare down their offerings significantly to compete in the marketplace against schools that comply with the law and still have access to those federal funds. That leaves two other options. Harvard could fight the finding in court, but since this is a civil finding, the DoJ has a lower evidentiary threshold. The fact that they have not just kept those who assaulted Jews on campus but rewarded them rather than punish or expel them speaks volumes about this finding. So too does Harvard’s apparent continuation of admissions discrimination even after losing a major Supreme Court case two years ago on that very issue. This finding certainly complicated their current lawsuits aimed at restoring some of the canceled subsidies and grants, and a DoJ lawsuit could deliver a body-blow financial judgment if pursued to its end. That’s why the WSJ notes that most schools in this position cut deals that accepts supervision and changes internal policies so as to avoid backbreaking penalties. Third option: cave. Garber thus far refuses to concede and negotiate a settlement, arguing that he’s trying to set an example that Academia can’t be pushed around (Hot Air). Ward Clark: If there aren’t some long faces around Harvard Yard this morning, there ought to be (Redstate).

Fed Up With Antifa Riots, Portland Residents Plead for National Guard

John Sexton of Hot Air covers the lawlessness—and the calls for federal help: (the protestor) started getting a lot of support from conservatives who thanked her for confronting Antifa. She described the response as “eye-opening”: “Not one left-wing person, not one self-described Democrat has shown support for me or my community. Only those from the so-called “right wing” have stepped up, spoken out, and shown generosity. It’s profoundly eye-opening.” She called for President Trump to send in the National Guard (Hot Air). Portland state lawmakers, meanwhile, are trying to craft legislation preventing any help from the federal government: Oregon lawmakers are moving to restrict the federal government’s authority over the state’s National Guard despite a surge of violent anti-ICE protests, particularly in Portland. Three Democratic state representatives introduced legislation that would block any deployment of the Oregon National Guard that would hinder its ability to respond to state emergencies such as wildfires. The bill also outlines the specific duties the Guard can and cannot be assigned. The proposal comes in response to President Donald Trump’s move to federalize the National Guard in California to help protect law enforcement amid anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles (Post Millennial). Democrats have a supermajority in the state Senate,18-12—and a majority in the state House of Representatives—36-24: Oregon has a Democratic trifecta. The Democratic Party controls the office of governor and both chambers of the state legislature (Ballotpedia; Ballotpedia).

Netanyahu to Visit US for Meeting With Trump

The Israeli Prime Minister will visit Trump this coming Monday, Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer having arrived yesterday: The cabinet held a discussion and will wait to hear about Dermer’s meetings in Washington before considering additional significant steps in Gaza. On Sunday, US President Donald Trump called for a deal to be made in Gaza and to “get the hostages back!!!” in a post to Truth Social. Earlier, Trump said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the process of negotiating a deal with Hamas to free the remaining hostages (Jerusalem Post). Times of Israel: This will be Netanyahu’s third visit to the White House since Trump returned to office in January. No world leader has visited more than once (TOI).

On Iran: Watch for a Monitoring Protocol

From the U.S., from Israel—or a joint effort. There’s been so much speculation on exactly how much damage the U.S. and Israeli strikes did to the mullah’s nuclear ambitions. The key thing to watch is what sort of monitoring or inspection process emerges—and what kind of teeth it has. There’s no question: The current regime is going to try to rebuild Hugh Hewitt turned to Michael Oren: I guarantee they’re going to attempt it. Of course, they’re going to attempt it and you’re going to see it in a couple of days. And unless you establish what a violation is, unless you clarify unequivocally to the Iranians that that brick on a brick at Fordo will elicit a powerful American or Israeli-American or an Israeli, a military response, they will try it. And why wouldn’t they? From an Iranian perspective, things may look very different. Yes, this is one of the great military victories in history. They’ll be studying it at West Point for the next 50 to a hundred years. I guarantee you there’ve been nothing like it and yet Iranians may view it differently as far as they’re concerned. They held up against the world’s largest superpower for 12 days. They inflicted prohibitive damage on Israel. They learned our weak point and at the end of it, the Iranians fired a couple of missiles at Qatar in America, sued for a ceasefire, even got Israel. Israel actually even forced a ceasefire on Israel. So from an Iranian perspective, this could look differently and I would bet my votes that there’s people in Tehran who said, “okay, well let’s start building and we can do it quietly at first. We can wait Donald Trump out. Three years is nothing.” They think in terms of decades and centuries. We can wait ’em out. And so there has to be a strong agreement between Israel and the United States about what constitutes a violation and if a violations do occur, what will be the U.S./Israeli response? (Hugh Hewitt).

Lessons From the UK Music Festival; the Convergence of Two Ideologies

The festival at Glastonbury, where Bob Vylan chanted “Death to the IDF”—to the delight of the crowd. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: What makes this moment uniquely dangerous is the merging of two ideologies that, historically, have operated in very different arenas: Islamism and Maoism. The former is fueled by absolutist theocracy and tribal vengeance; the latter, by class war and ideological conformity. One invokes the divine; the other pretends to be secular. Both demand submission. Islamism seeks to restore a seventh-century caliphate through bombs, blood, and barbarity. Maoism seeks to flatten all hierarchies under the boot of “equity,” enforced through surveillance, humiliation, and fear. One dreams of paradise after death. The other promises utopia after sufficient political and social purges. But both share a core instinct: Crush the infidel, purge the impure, seize control of the narrative. Islamism brings the fire—holy rage, a fixation on martyrdom, and a visceral hatred for Jews that predates the state of Israel by centuries. Maoism brings the strategy—the long march through institutions, the cultural struggle sessions, the rewriting of history, the reframing of reality through social media and sound bites. When these ideologies converge—and they have—you get something far more dangerous than a political protest. You get a cultural movement. And this one has a clear mission: Erase not just Israel “from the river to the sea,” but the Jewish people from the moral map (Free Press). This convergence—between Maoism and Islamism—is evident as well with Zohran Mamdani and the New York mayoral race: Mamdani has referred to himself as a “proud Muslim,” and he says his identity as a Muslim American is an integral part of his political and personal life. He also says it forms the foundation for his fight against injustice and inequality (NewsNation).

In Wake of Supreme Court Skrmetti Ruling, Three Appellate Courts to Review “Gender Transition” Cases

Washington Stand: The Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s law protecting minors from gender transition procedures, is already making itself felt in other cases pending before the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments of three appellate courts and sent the cases back “for further consideration in light of United States v. Skrmetti.” The three cases address laws in four states dealing with transgender issues different from that considered in Skrmetti — namely, whether legislatures can protect children from gender transition procedures…. perhaps the most surprising part of this development is that the Supreme Court had no less than three pending cases, challenging four distinct state laws, that addressed an issue so similar to Skrmetti. Yet this does not come as a total surprise. The Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision opened a Pandora’s box of litigation by redefining sex-based discrimination to include any sort of categorization where sex or gender is even mentioned. Five years later, these cases are filtering up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will have to contend with a tidal wave of litigation where leftwing activists try to extend the logic of Bostock to new areas of law. In Skrmetti, the Supreme Court placed one of the first sandbags against that surge, identifying that use-based distinctions between different medical procedures — even if they incidentally affect sexual issues — are not sex-based discrimination. That sandbag has already repelled three more cases moving upward through the judicial system (Washington Stand).

Democrats’ Pride in America at Record Low

Only 36 percent are proud of our nation. Gallup: Democrats are mostly responsible for the drop in U.S. pride this year, with 36% saying they are extremely or very proud, down from 62% a year ago. This is only the second time Democrats’ pride has fallen below the majority level, along with a 42% reading in 2020, the last year of the first Trump administration. That poll was conducted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and shortly after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers. Political independents’ pride has also reached a low point, with 53% expressing a great deal of pride, down seven points from last year, which had been the previous low for this group. Independents’ pride has been declining since the early 2000s, dropping below 80% for the first time in 2005, then below 70% in 2019 and below 60% this year: These changes have occurred mostly over the past decade, and have done so amid greater pessimism about the economic prospects for young people, widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the nation, greater ideological divides between the parties, unfavorable images of both parties, and intense partisan rancor during the Trump and Biden administrations (Gallup).